CDZ Serious question, where has socialism accually worked?

[Meathead]

Privatizing Our Vote: The Ultimate Crime

I thought votes were necessarily a private matter except for those in legislatures.

You trust a corporation with the vote count? Fool.

I trust private corporations with then food I eat ffs! So do you!

 

[S.J.]

It depends on what is considered "working" and what the real objective of socialism is. It seems the only ones who ever want socialism are the ones in control. Everyone else is screwed. No incentive to excel, no reward for being ambitious, no individuality, just mediocrity at best, and poverty in the end. It only lasts as long as there is capitalism nearby willing to support it.

 

[rightwinger]

Depends how you define Socialism

Nobody in Europe operates under pure socialism but many have strong socialist policies where the government is heavilly involved in education, healthcare and retirement

Countries like Sweden, Finland and Denmark are doing quite well and have a high standard of living

 

[Fishlore]

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

What ideas are so strange to you?

Mounting debt, runaway inflation government takeover of industries, loss of economic power in the EU. European economies were hit hard by the American securitized mortgage bubble and have recovered more slowly than the USA because of greater resistance to government bailout and heavy reliance on austerity programs which didn't work. Neither of these economic policies strikes me as particularly socialistic. There has been no runaway inflation in the eurozone; in fact, a bit of inflation would help recovery. The rise of the China has produced a relative retreat in European and American economies but nothing unforeseen or disastrous. What is more, comparison within the EU doesn't show a pattern of socialist failure and free market success.

 

[regent]

Is there such a thing as a pure economic system? Seems most are mixtures and we argue that in the mixture there is too much of one thing and not enough of another.
The value of some economic labels is to frighten an electorate. Think of how long Republicans have used the fear factor that socialism leads to communism? Scared the bejabbers out of some Americans for some time. The USSR never reached the communist stage and dropped their Scientific Socialism a few years after the revolution. Does any nation practice laissez faire capitalism today? Somalia has been mentioned.

 

[oldsoul]

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

My measure is defined in a simlar way, however with the major difference of of using less relative terms. In "relative terms" one could simply lower the stardard for the wealthiest, while doing little to nothing for the poorest. I, for one, would rather give the poorest a hand-up, versus a hand-out. By which I mean, provide a means for the poor to improve their earning power versus giving them more income.

Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will feed himself for life.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Privatizing Our Vote: The Ultimate Crime

I thought votes were necessarily a private matter except for those in legislatures.

You trust a corporation with the vote count? Fool.

I trust private corporations with then food I eat ffs! So do you!

You mght....but Americans don't. We have regulatory agencies that help us with this. Thankfully.

 

[Fishlore]

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

My measure is defined in a simlar way, however with the major difference of of using less relative terms. In "relative terms" one could simply lower the stardard for the wealthiest, while doing little to nothing for the poorest. I, for one, would rather give the poorest a hand-up, versus a hand-out. By which I mean, provide a means for the poor to improve their earning power versus giving them more income.

Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will feed himself for life.

The hand up versus hand out is an attractive idea but isn't going to be a perfect solution in our American society. I imagine we agree that there are some folks for whom the hand up is not going to help: abandoned children, terminally ill, mentally disabled and so forth.

Starting with the group obvious above, I realize that they are not the only problem citizens. Our "free market" capitalism is a competitive economy with a number of zero-sum features in it. The competitive game of getting "up" is not played on a level field either. Recently Mr. Trump recalled his start in real estate using a million dollar loan from his father. In a capitalist society, capital is vital and unequal access to necessary capital disadvantage some, helps others. There is also "social capital" as well as financial capital. Networking, knowing how the system works and how the game is played is crucial to success

In such a game, there are going to be more losers than winners. As income distribution skews more and more, the number of winners shrinks while the prize for winning grows. Those at the bottom don't all stay on the bottom but social mobility is stagnating in direct proportion to income distribution.

No society's game is ever going to be completely fair, but when equality of opportunity is as limited as it is in today's America, more and more people are going to need both a hand out and a hand up. And who is going to pay for those hands?

 

[LoneLaugher]

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

My measure is defined in a simlar way, however with the major difference of of using less relative terms. In "relative terms" one could simply lower the stardard for the wealthiest, while doing little to nothing for the poorest. I, for one, would rather give the poorest a hand-up, versus a hand-out. By which I mean, provide a means for the poor to improve their earning power versus giving them more income.

Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will feed himself for life.

Oh wow! That last sentence is so awesome. I've never heard that before. Now that I have, I will abandon all of my thoughts on how the economy works and teach the next hungry kid I meet how to make a bamboo fishing pole! Awesome!!

You, being a nutter, don't want to give anyone a hand up. That requires investment. You know.....in things like education, health care and infrastructure. Things you have absolutely shit on for your entire adult life.

 

[rightwinger]

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

My measure is defined in a simlar way, however with the major difference of of using less relative terms. In "relative terms" one could simply lower the stardard for the wealthiest, while doing little to nothing for the poorest. I, for one, would rather give the poorest a hand-up, versus a hand-out. By which I mean, provide a means for the poor to improve their earning power versus giving them more income.

Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will feed himself for life.

Good thought

But what do you do when there are no longer any fish in the pond?

 

[tigerred59]

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

Ya, know if I could go into an archive of you and the rest of these nuts here, whining about, stressing over the so called debt during the Bush years, people like you would really have some creds around here. So here's a challenge, not only to you, but to those who constantly come to the web to whine about the deficit, the budget, God, life, ants, peanut butter and vomit.....Please show us anywhere on the web at any site, were these concerns bothered you when Bush was spending like a fuckin idiot, otherwise....we all should dismiss you and the others here as simply a non factor who likes to bitch like a bitch.

I was simply asking a question, troll.

No you did not, you not only asked a question, but you gave your take on government and socialism....I simply as always responded.....now either show proof or shut up!!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

Denmark is not all what it's cracked up to be.

European Socialism: Why America Doesn't Want It

 

[Fishlore]

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

Denmark is not all what it's cracked up to be.

European Socialism: Why America Doesn't Want It

Who is cracking up Denmark? Surely not the Danes. Scandinavians don't have any of the arrogant provincialism of Americans. USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! There is no Danish exceptionalism.

 

[sealybobo]

It depends on what is considered "working" and what the real objective of socialism is. It seems the only ones who ever want socialism are the ones in control. Everyone else is screwed. No incentive to excel, no reward for being ambitious, no individuality, just mediocrity at best, and poverty in the end. It only lasts as long as there is capitalism nearby willing to support it.

No one wants GE or Ford to be socialism. Do you want national and state parks sold and managed by corporations or private land owners? Do you want to sell Yellowstone to the koch brothers?

Do you want corporations in charge of our elections?

Do you want our military, police, teachers and prisons all run by for profit companies?

 

[sealybobo]

Privatizing Our Vote: The Ultimate Crime

I thought votes were necessarily a private matter except for those in legislatures.

You trust a corporation with the vote count? Fool.

I trust private corporations with then food I eat ffs! So do you!

That's why America is fat as fuck.

 

[sealybobo]

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

My measure is defined in a simlar way, however with the major difference of of using less relative terms. In "relative terms" one could simply lower the stardard for the wealthiest, while doing little to nothing for the poorest. I, for one, would rather give the poorest a hand-up, versus a hand-out. By which I mean, provide a means for the poor to improve their earning power versus giving them more income.

Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will feed himself for life.

The hand up versus hand out is an attractive idea but isn't going to be a perfect solution in our American society. I imagine we agree that there are some folks for whom the hand up is not going to help: abandoned children, terminally ill, mentally disabled and so forth.

Starting with the group obvious above, I realize that they are not the only problem citizens. Our "free market" capitalism is a competitive economy with a number of zero-sum features in it. The competitive game of getting "up" is not played on a level field either. Recently Mr. Trump recalled his start in real estate using a million dollar loan from his father. In a capitalist society, capital is vital and unequal access to necessary capital disadvantage some, helps others. There is also "social capital" as well as financial capital. Networking, knowing how the system works and how the game is played is crucial to success

In such a game, there are going to be more losers than winners. As income distribution skews more and more, the number of winners shrinks while the prize for winning grows. Those at the bottom don't all stay on the bottom but social mobility is stagnating in direct proportion to income distribution.

No society's game is ever going to be completely fair, but when equality of opportunity is as limited as it is in today's America, more and more people are going to need both a hand out and a hand up. And who is going to pay for those hands?

You folks have demonized American workers because you hate or hated our high wages.

Now you say we want hand outs? How fucking insulting. We work very hard and productivity is way up.

Your so intellectually dishonest.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Big government hooks our kids on Socialism while they're in grade school. It's a billion times worse than anything big tobacco ever did

 

[sealybobo]

Big government hooks our kids on Socialism while they're in grade school. It's a billion times worse than anything big tobacco ever did

You mean they teach them the importance of government? Remember, those teachers are government employees. So are cops. And it is important that we have good PUBLIC schools and not for profit cops. Don't you agree?

No one is anti capitalism. We are just against unregulated free market capitalism. It is harmful to democracy.

Capitalism is just another ISM. It can be corrupted too. In fact is has. But you worship it. I would say you guys worship it more than Jesus.

 

[regent]

Big government hooks our kids on Socialism while they're in grade school. It's a billion times worse than anything big tobacco ever did

Are public schools, socialism?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

US military springs instantly to mind. Free healthcare, food, housing, etc.