If socialism is so great, why has almost every country that tried it abandoned it?

[danielpalos]

Our version of socialism is defined by our Constitutions.

 

[bripat9643]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

The largest example of the nationalization of the economy this country has is the Federal Reserve.

When do you suppose the "Capitalists" will argue to end that?

The true capitalists argue that it should be abolished.

 

[bripat9643]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

Canada. Australia. Germany. Norway. Not Venezuela.

Those countries maintain a different equilibrium between public and private resources than we do.

There ya go. That's the real argument. Start there. That might be an interesting conversation.
.

Canada and Australia are higher up on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom than that United States.

 

[Mac1958]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

Canada. Australia. Germany. Norway. Not Venezuela.

Those countries maintain a different equilibrium between public and private resources than we do.

There ya go. That's the real argument. Start there. That might be an interesting conversation.
.

Canada and Australia are higher up on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom than that United States.

Great, so we should be having THAT conversation instead of all the phony Venezuela bullshit.
.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You're probably correct, there. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what your point is.

As long as the Capitalist fight for socialism for the top I will fight for it for the bottom.

Seems like a silly fight. Why not fight to get the people in power to stop trying to plan the f'in economy? Sounds more like tribalism than principle.

Because it isn't going to happen. We will have to wait until others countries finally grow tired of us.

So, since an economic system of which you approve isn't likely, you're going to fight for ecomomic apocalypse B over economic apocalypse A? Why even bother?

And I don't see how other countries are doing it much better than we are, honestly.

I should just go along with screwing over the poor and middle class?

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

 

[bripat9643]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

Canada. Australia. Germany. Norway. Not Venezuela.

Those countries maintain a different equilibrium between public and private resources than we do.

There ya go. That's the real argument. Start there. That might be an interesting conversation.
.

Canada and Australia are higher up on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom than that United States.

Great, so we should be having THAT conversation instead of all the phony Venezuela bullshit.
.

There's nothing phony about Venezuela. It's a classic example of another failed attempt to implement socialism. There are no successful examples.

 

[Mac1958]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

Canada. Australia. Germany. Norway. Not Venezuela.

Those countries maintain a different equilibrium between public and private resources than we do.

There ya go. That's the real argument. Start there. That might be an interesting conversation.
.

Canada and Australia are higher up on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom than that United States.

Great, so we should be having THAT conversation instead of all the phony Venezuela bullshit.
.

There's nothing phony about Venezuela. It's a classic example of another failed attempt to implement socialism. There are no successful examples.

So, just to be clear: You think that the Left wants us to more closely emulate Venezuela, and not Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

Is that really what you think?
.

 

[pknopp]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

The largest example of the nationalization of the economy this country has is the Federal Reserve.

When do you suppose the "Capitalists" will argue to end that?

The true capitalists argue that it should be abolished.

As I note......0005% have no impact on anything.

 

[pknopp]

As long as the Capitalist fight for socialism for the top I will fight for it for the bottom.

Seems like a silly fight. Why not fight to get the people in power to stop trying to plan the f'in economy? Sounds more like tribalism than principle.

Because it isn't going to happen. We will have to wait until others countries finally grow tired of us.

So, since an economic system of which you approve isn't likely, you're going to fight for ecomomic apocalypse B over economic apocalypse A? Why even bother?

And I don't see how other countries are doing it much better than we are, honestly.

I should just go along with screwing over the poor and middle class?

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Both "wings" believe that they know what the other "wing" wants.

The right tells us that we want to be like Cuba and Venezuela. That we long for authoritarian rule, poverty and hopelessness.

We tell the right that they want to be like America only without the equality, justice for all and the key social programs that have helped make us the most powerful nation in the world.

Which belief is the closest to reality?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

Canada. Australia. Germany. Norway. Not Venezuela.

Those countries maintain a different equilibrium between public and private resources than we do.

There ya go. That's the real argument. Start there. That might be an interesting conversation.
.

Canada and Australia are higher up on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom than that United States.

Great, so we should be having THAT conversation instead of all the phony Venezuela bullshit.
.

There's nothing phony about Venezuela. It's a classic example of another failed attempt to implement socialism. There are no successful examples.

So, just to be clear: You think that the Left wants us to more closely emulate Venezuela, and not Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

Is that really what you think?
.

Seems like a silly fight. Why not fight to get the people in power to stop trying to plan the f'in economy? Sounds more like tribalism than principle.

Because it isn't going to happen. We will have to wait until others countries finally grow tired of us.

So, since an economic system of which you approve isn't likely, you're going to fight for ecomomic apocalypse B over economic apocalypse A? Why even bother?

And I don't see how other countries are doing it much better than we are, honestly.

I should just go along with screwing over the poor and middle class?

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

 

[Mac1958]

Canada. Australia. Germany. Norway. Not Venezuela.

Those countries maintain a different equilibrium between public and private resources than we do.

There ya go. That's the real argument. Start there. That might be an interesting conversation.
.

Canada and Australia are higher up on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom than that United States.

Great, so we should be having THAT conversation instead of all the phony Venezuela bullshit.
.

There's nothing phony about Venezuela. It's a classic example of another failed attempt to implement socialism. There are no successful examples.

So, just to be clear: You think that the Left wants us to more closely emulate Venezuela, and not Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

Is that really what you think?
.

Because it isn't going to happen. We will have to wait until others countries finally grow tired of us.

So, since an economic system of which you approve isn't likely, you're going to fight for ecomomic apocalypse B over economic apocalypse A? Why even bother?

And I don't see how other countries are doing it much better than we are, honestly.

I should just go along with screwing over the poor and middle class?

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

 

[RealDave]

You a

This socialism vs capitalism thing is just a red herring to distract democrats and republicans alike from the real issues, IMO.

Socialism is real issue when two of the top candidates of one of the major political parties are advocating for it.

You assfucks have no clue what socialism is.

 

[Thinker101]

Seems like a silly fight. Why not fight to get the people in power to stop trying to plan the f'in economy? Sounds more like tribalism than principle.

Because it isn't going to happen. We will have to wait until others countries finally grow tired of us.

So, since an economic system of which you approve isn't likely, you're going to fight for ecomomic apocalypse B over economic apocalypse A? Why even bother?

And I don't see how other countries are doing it much better than we are, honestly.

I should just go along with screwing over the poor and middle class?

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Perhaps you just don't pay attention.

Shock and outrage as masked Antifa crowd blocks and shouts at elderly couple in Canada (VIDEO)

Canada spawns its own yellow vest protests – with extra rightwing populism

Naked protesters flood Quebec streets before start of Montreal F1 Grand Prix

 

[bripat9643]

Both "wings" believe that they know what the other "wing" wants.

The right tells us that we want to be like Cuba and Venezuela. That we long for authoritarian rule, poverty and hopelessness.

We tell the right that they want to be like America only without the equality, justice for all and the key social programs that have helped make us the most powerful nation in the world.

Which belief is the closest to reality?

Of course you don't want the end result of the policies adopted by Cuba and Venezuela, buy you want to adopt those same exact policies. You're too stupid to realize that those policies get those results.

 

[pknopp]

Canada. Australia. Germany. Norway. Not Venezuela.

Those countries maintain a different equilibrium between public and private resources than we do.

There ya go. That's the real argument. Start there. That might be an interesting conversation.
.

Canada and Australia are higher up on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom than that United States.

Great, so we should be having THAT conversation instead of all the phony Venezuela bullshit.
.

There's nothing phony about Venezuela. It's a classic example of another failed attempt to implement socialism. There are no successful examples.

So, just to be clear: You think that the Left wants us to more closely emulate Venezuela, and not Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

Is that really what you think?
.

Because it isn't going to happen. We will have to wait until others countries finally grow tired of us.

So, since an economic system of which you approve isn't likely, you're going to fight for ecomomic apocalypse B over economic apocalypse A? Why even bother?

And I don't see how other countries are doing it much better than we are, honestly.

I should just go along with screwing over the poor and middle class?

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

Blueberries.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Half the world used to be socialist, but now people in those countries have abandoned socialism and are now enjoying the fruits of the capitalist system.

Why should the United States convert to a system that's a proven failure?

Let's tell Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC that if they like socialism so much, they can move to Cuba.

This is a lie – neither Sanders nor Warren advocate for ‘socialism.’

Clearly no one on the right understands what ‘socialism’ actually is.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Canada and Australia are higher up on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom than that United States.

Great, so we should be having THAT conversation instead of all the phony Venezuela bullshit.
.

There's nothing phony about Venezuela. It's a classic example of another failed attempt to implement socialism. There are no successful examples.

So, just to be clear: You think that the Left wants us to more closely emulate Venezuela, and not Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

Is that really what you think?
.

So, since an economic system of which you approve isn't likely, you're going to fight for ecomomic apocalypse B over economic apocalypse A? Why even bother?

And I don't see how other countries are doing it much better than we are, honestly.

I should just go along with screwing over the poor and middle class?

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand, and it causes the term to become diluted. When the left does it, it's for brevity, and I'm guessing it does no harm to the overall understanding of the word? Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

 

[pknopp]

Because it isn't going to happen. We will have to wait until others countries finally grow tired of us.

So, since an economic system of which you approve isn't likely, you're going to fight for ecomomic apocalypse B over economic apocalypse A? Why even bother?

And I don't see how other countries are doing it much better than we are, honestly.

I should just go along with screwing over the poor and middle class?

Countries that attempt socialism seem to do that anyway. If an ideal scenario is too unlikely to fight for, why fight at all?

I hardly see people protesting in the streets in Canada.

Perhaps you just don't pay attention.

Shock and outrage as masked Antifa crowd blocks and shouts at elderly couple in Canada (VIDEO)

Canada spawns its own yellow vest protests – with extra rightwing populism

Naked protesters flood Quebec streets before start of Montreal F1 Grand Prix

So the far right is getting upset. OK.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Half the world used to be socialist, but now people in those countries have abandoned socialism and are now enjoying the fruits of the capitalist system.

Why should the United States convert to a system that's a proven failure?

Let's tell Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC that if they like socialism so much, they can move to Cuba.

This is a lie – neither Sanders nor Warren advocate for ‘socialism.’

Clearly no one on the right understands what ‘socialism’ actually is.

The right wing didn't name Bernie a democratic socialist. He named himself that.

Also, I'm right of center and I've got the dictionary definition on hand. Define "no one".