CDZ Serious question, where has socialism accually worked?

[westwall]

Denmark benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

Denmark benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

ROTFL. Royal Dutch Shell plc, commonly known as Shell, is an Anglo–Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom. Denmark isn't the Netherlands. What grade are you in? On the other hand, Budweiser Beer is now owned by a Danish company. Denmark's wealth is not based on extractive industries like oil. Denmark has more than its share of millionaires and big, international corporations. Socialism is far from incompatible with capitalism or millionaire businessmen. The difference is the responsibility of every Dane for his or her share of the Danish community. Denmark also has a King and a bunch of noble families.

Denmark owns pretty large quantities of RDS stock. They get dividends from them. That's one of many oil based income streams they enjoy from the petroleum market. Add to that they are the major manufacturer for the RDS and other North Sea oil based companies and it becomes quite plain why they are able to support their extensive welfare economy.

According to data provided by the World Bank (List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
the USA ranks 9th in GDP per capita at 54,629. Denmark ranks 17th at
44,862. Why, sensible citizens may well ask, does the USA, with a gross domestic product per capita that is almost 122% that of tiny Denmark have millions of its people living in poverty with sub-standard schools for its kids, inadequate medical care, declining wage rates, inadequate retirement plans and an upward mobility index far lower than not only Denmark but most of the countries of Europe? Why is our homicide rate many times that of Denmark? Why is our incarceration rate the highest in the world? Why are mass murders, a monthly occurrence here, almost unknown in Denmark. Why are our air and water far more polluted? ... and on and on...

Talk radio blowhards pontificate about the failure of socialism. The real question is why has American free market capitalism failed so suddenly and so dramatically?

GDP is not the whole story though is it. The overall size of a population is a huge determiner of how long socialism can work. We have 10 times as many people NOT working as exist in their entire country. Why is our homicide rate so high? Black and Hispanic gang members who have brought their third world culture with them. I find it amusing that you argue a point and have either no knowledge of the exact nature of your claim, or you choose to ignore the very real differences between the USA with its population of almost DOUBLE that of the entire continent of Europe for the most part.

Your methodology is sophomoric. Tiny Denmark and huge China have both enjoyed the benefits of socialism for many years. Of course, capitalism isn't failing in most economies either. We suffered a collapse due crooked mortgages by the biggest banks, a scam which wounded the economies of countries naive enough to trust the US government's bank regulations. The whole idea of an economic system failing is childish. That isn't the way history works. I'm glad you find all this amusing. Those who, like you, get all their ideas from right wing talk shows have real trouble finding anything to smile about.

They have? Tell that to the 150 million that Mao had killed during the Cultural Revolution. The overwhelming majority of Chinese lived a poor pathetic agrarian existence until China eased the reigns and allowed CAPITALISM to enter into the country. Now, China is booming thanks to CAPITALISM.

If my methodology is sophomoric, yours is moronic.

Just sayin...

 

[Fishlore]

ROTFL. Royal Dutch Shell plc, commonly known as Shell, is an Anglo–Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom. Denmark isn't the Netherlands. What grade are you in? On the other hand, Budweiser Beer is now owned by a Danish company. Denmark's wealth is not based on extractive industries like oil. Denmark has more than its share of millionaires and big, international corporations. Socialism is far from incompatible with capitalism or millionaire businessmen. The difference is the responsibility of every Dane for his or her share of the Danish community. Denmark also has a King and a bunch of noble families.

Denmark owns pretty large quantities of RDS stock. They get dividends from them. That's one of many oil based income streams they enjoy from the petroleum market. Add to that they are the major manufacturer for the RDS and other North Sea oil based companies and it becomes quite plain why they are able to support their extensive welfare economy.

According to data provided by the World Bank (List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
the USA ranks 9th in GDP per capita at 54,629. Denmark ranks 17th at
44,862. Why, sensible citizens may well ask, does the USA, with a gross domestic product per capita that is almost 122% that of tiny Denmark have millions of its people living in poverty with sub-standard schools for its kids, inadequate medical care, declining wage rates, inadequate retirement plans and an upward mobility index far lower than not only Denmark but most of the countries of Europe? Why is our homicide rate many times that of Denmark? Why is our incarceration rate the highest in the world? Why are mass murders, a monthly occurrence here, almost unknown in Denmark. Why are our air and water far more polluted? ... and on and on...

Talk radio blowhards pontificate about the failure of socialism. The real question is why has American free market capitalism failed so suddenly and so dramatically?

GDP is not the whole story though is it. The overall size of a population is a huge determiner of how long socialism can work. We have 10 times as many people NOT working as exist in their entire country. Why is our homicide rate so high? Black and Hispanic gang members who have brought their third world culture with them. I find it amusing that you argue a point and have either no knowledge of the exact nature of your claim, or you choose to ignore the very real differences between the USA with its population of almost DOUBLE that of the entire continent of Europe for the most part.

Your methodology is sophomoric. Tiny Denmark and huge China have both enjoyed the benefits of socialism for many years. Of course, capitalism isn't failing in most economies either. We suffered a collapse due crooked mortgages by the biggest banks, a scam which wounded the economies of countries naive enough to trust the US government's bank regulations. The whole idea of an economic system failing is childish. That isn't the way history works. I'm glad you find all this amusing. Those who, like you, get all their ideas from right wing talk shows have real trouble finding anything to smile about.

They have? Tell that to the 150 million that Mao had killed during the Cultural Revolution. The overwhelming majority of Chinese lived a poor pathetic agrarian existence until China eased the reigns and allowed CAPITALISM to enter into the country. Now, China is booming thanks to CAPITALISM.

If my methodology is sophomoric, yours is moronic.

Just sayin...

The casualties of the Great Cultural Revolution, while regrettable, have nothing to do with the efficacy of the Chinese socialist economy. An irrelevant bit of right wing hysteria. Your grasp of the development of the Chinese economy in the 20th century is inconsistent with the known facts.

The idea that capitalism entered China recently is absurd. The Chinese economy was capitalist for centuries -- those centuries that you describe as poor and pathetic. It wasn't until 1949, when a totalitarian form of socialism under the Communist Party of China took control, that hundreds of millions of Chinese were lifted out of poverty and China "stood up" on the world's stage as a major power.

The fact that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China allows tightly controlled foreign investment does not mean that China is a capitalist country. You seem to have no idea of the sectors of the Chinese economy under direct control of the Government of China, the Communist Party or the People's Liberation Army.

Your observations are simplistic right-wing propaganda ludicrously disguised as historical analysis. Trick or treat!

 

[danielpalos]

Depends on what you think is socialism....
Investing in roads, police, our children's education is away different then handing out "welfare". The difference is the reality it doesn't add back to society.


If you think the former is socialism then maybe you're against civilization.

Only right is that cognitively dissonant while proclaiming to be for some "gospel Truth" in public venues.

 

[westwall]

Denmark owns pretty large quantities of RDS stock. They get dividends from them. That's one of many oil based income streams they enjoy from the petroleum market. Add to that they are the major manufacturer for the RDS and other North Sea oil based companies and it becomes quite plain why they are able to support their extensive welfare economy.

According to data provided by the World Bank (List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
the USA ranks 9th in GDP per capita at 54,629. Denmark ranks 17th at
44,862. Why, sensible citizens may well ask, does the USA, with a gross domestic product per capita that is almost 122% that of tiny Denmark have millions of its people living in poverty with sub-standard schools for its kids, inadequate medical care, declining wage rates, inadequate retirement plans and an upward mobility index far lower than not only Denmark but most of the countries of Europe? Why is our homicide rate many times that of Denmark? Why is our incarceration rate the highest in the world? Why are mass murders, a monthly occurrence here, almost unknown in Denmark. Why are our air and water far more polluted? ... and on and on...

Talk radio blowhards pontificate about the failure of socialism. The real question is why has American free market capitalism failed so suddenly and so dramatically?

GDP is not the whole story though is it. The overall size of a population is a huge determiner of how long socialism can work. We have 10 times as many people NOT working as exist in their entire country. Why is our homicide rate so high? Black and Hispanic gang members who have brought their third world culture with them. I find it amusing that you argue a point and have either no knowledge of the exact nature of your claim, or you choose to ignore the very real differences between the USA with its population of almost DOUBLE that of the entire continent of Europe for the most part.

Your methodology is sophomoric. Tiny Denmark and huge China have both enjoyed the benefits of socialism for many years. Of course, capitalism isn't failing in most economies either. We suffered a collapse due crooked mortgages by the biggest banks, a scam which wounded the economies of countries naive enough to trust the US government's bank regulations. The whole idea of an economic system failing is childish. That isn't the way history works. I'm glad you find all this amusing. Those who, like you, get all their ideas from right wing talk shows have real trouble finding anything to smile about.

They have? Tell that to the 150 million that Mao had killed during the Cultural Revolution. The overwhelming majority of Chinese lived a poor pathetic agrarian existence until China eased the reigns and allowed CAPITALISM to enter into the country. Now, China is booming thanks to CAPITALISM.

If my methodology is sophomoric, yours is moronic.

Just sayin...

The casualties of the Great Cultural Revolution, while regrettable, have nothing to do with the efficacy of the Chinese socialist economy. An irrelevant bit of right wing hysteria. Your grasp of the development of the Chinese economy in the 20th century is inconsistent with the known facts.

The idea that capitalism entered China recently is absurd. The Chinese economy was capitalist for centuries -- those centuries that you describe as poor and pathetic. It wasn't until 1949, when a totalitarian form of socialism under the Communist Party of China took control, that hundreds of millions of Chinese were lifted out of poverty and China "stood up" on the world's stage as a major power.

The fact that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China allows tightly controlled foreign investment does not mean that China is a capitalist country. You seem to have no idea of the sectors of the Chinese economy under direct control of the Government of China, the Communist Party or the People's Liberation Army.

Your observations are simplistic right-wing propaganda ludicrously disguised as historical analysis. Trick or treat!

Ahhhh, I love you progressives. You can blissfully gloss over the deaths of over a hundred million people as "regrettable" and no doubt necessary to further the goals of socialism, but those who died, and their relatives who survived I think would not use that term. Furthermore every large collectivist country, and even some of the small ones, has had to resort to mass murder to force the natives into compliance.

Your assertion that the Chinese economy was capitalist is ludicrous, as are the majority of your arguments. I have full knowledge of how the government of China controls the economy. Far more than you it seems as i refuse to purchase items made in China as I know that they are operated by the various armies of China. The North is controlled by NORINCO or the Northern Army of China and the Southern Army of China controls Poly Technologies.

This is all well known to those of us with a brain. We also feel that the wholesale murder of millions of people is not "regrettable" but a crime against humanity which you clearly do not.

 

[Fishlore]

According to data provided by the World Bank (List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
the USA ranks 9th in GDP per capita at 54,629. Denmark ranks 17th at
44,862. Why, sensible citizens may well ask, does the USA, with a gross domestic product per capita that is almost 122% that of tiny Denmark have millions of its people living in poverty with sub-standard schools for its kids, inadequate medical care, declining wage rates, inadequate retirement plans and an upward mobility index far lower than not only Denmark but most of the countries of Europe? Why is our homicide rate many times that of Denmark? Why is our incarceration rate the highest in the world? Why are mass murders, a monthly occurrence here, almost unknown in Denmark. Why are our air and water far more polluted? ... and on and on...

Talk radio blowhards pontificate about the failure of socialism. The real question is why has American free market capitalism failed so suddenly and so dramatically?

GDP is not the whole story though is it. The overall size of a population is a huge determiner of how long socialism can work. We have 10 times as many people NOT working as exist in their entire country. Why is our homicide rate so high? Black and Hispanic gang members who have brought their third world culture with them. I find it amusing that you argue a point and have either no knowledge of the exact nature of your claim, or you choose to ignore the very real differences between the USA with its population of almost DOUBLE that of the entire continent of Europe for the most part.

Your methodology is sophomoric. Tiny Denmark and huge China have both enjoyed the benefits of socialism for many years. Of course, capitalism isn't failing in most economies either. We suffered a collapse due crooked mortgages by the biggest banks, a scam which wounded the economies of countries naive enough to trust the US government's bank regulations. The whole idea of an economic system failing is childish. That isn't the way history works. I'm glad you find all this amusing. Those who, like you, get all their ideas from right wing talk shows have real trouble finding anything to smile about.

They have? Tell that to the 150 million that Mao had killed during the Cultural Revolution. The overwhelming majority of Chinese lived a poor pathetic agrarian existence until China eased the reigns and allowed CAPITALISM to enter into the country. Now, China is booming thanks to CAPITALISM.

If my methodology is sophomoric, yours is moronic.

Just sayin...

The casualties of the Great Cultural Revolution, while regrettable, have nothing to do with the efficacy of the Chinese socialist economy. An irrelevant bit of right wing hysteria. Your grasp of the development of the Chinese economy in the 20th century is inconsistent with the known facts.

The idea that capitalism entered China recently is absurd. The Chinese economy was capitalist for centuries -- those centuries that you describe as poor and pathetic. It wasn't until 1949, when a totalitarian form of socialism under the Communist Party of China took control, that hundreds of millions of Chinese were lifted out of poverty and China "stood up" on the world's stage as a major power.

The fact that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China allows tightly controlled foreign investment does not mean that China is a capitalist country. You seem to have no idea of the sectors of the Chinese economy under direct control of the Government of China, the Communist Party or the People's Liberation Army.

Your observations are simplistic right-wing propaganda ludicrously disguised as historical analysis. Trick or treat!

Ahhhh, I love you progressives. You can blissfully gloss over the deaths of over a hundred million people as "regrettable" and no doubt necessary to further the goals of socialism, but those who died, and their relatives who survived I think would not use that term. Furthermore every large collectivist country, and even some of the small ones, has had to resort to mass murder to force the natives into compliance.

Your assertion that the Chinese economy was capitalist is ludicrous, as are the majority of your arguments. I have full knowledge of how the government of China controls the economy. Far more than you it seems as i refuse to purchase items made in China as I know that they are operated by the various armies of China. The North is controlled by NORINCO or the Northern Army of China and the Southern Army of China controls Poly Technologies.

This is all well known to those of us with a brain. We also feel that the wholesale murder of millions of people is not "regrettable" but a crime against humanity which you clearly do not.

I wish you could hold off on the personal attacks as I am almost incapable of letting them slide by unanswered, but I'' try on this one.
The economy of China is not reflected in the excesses of Mao's Great Cultural Revolution and more than America's free market capitalism is reflected in the genocide of Native American peoples. An economy is made up of macroeconomic and microeconomic structures and organizations. War crimes are not economic structures.

If you think it ludicrous to describe the economy of pre-revoltuon China as capitalist, what term would you propose instead?

Your boycott of products produced by companies operated by the Chinese military is as laudable as it is ineffective. I can't imagine how you think these companies are evidence of a capitalist economy in China. Do you understand that the Chinese military is a branch of the Chines government?

I'm going to ignore the personal remarks for now. I'll wait to see your answer to the specific issues I have cited:

What kind of economy prevailed in pre-Revolutionary China?
How does ownership of manufacturing plants by the PLA constitute a capitalist economy?
Do you wish to stick to a discussion of the issues or are you up for a slanging match?

 

[westwall]

GDP is not the whole story though is it. The overall size of a population is a huge determiner of how long socialism can work. We have 10 times as many people NOT working as exist in their entire country. Why is our homicide rate so high? Black and Hispanic gang members who have brought their third world culture with them. I find it amusing that you argue a point and have either no knowledge of the exact nature of your claim, or you choose to ignore the very real differences between the USA with its population of almost DOUBLE that of the entire continent of Europe for the most part.

Your methodology is sophomoric. Tiny Denmark and huge China have both enjoyed the benefits of socialism for many years. Of course, capitalism isn't failing in most economies either. We suffered a collapse due crooked mortgages by the biggest banks, a scam which wounded the economies of countries naive enough to trust the US government's bank regulations. The whole idea of an economic system failing is childish. That isn't the way history works. I'm glad you find all this amusing. Those who, like you, get all their ideas from right wing talk shows have real trouble finding anything to smile about.

They have? Tell that to the 150 million that Mao had killed during the Cultural Revolution. The overwhelming majority of Chinese lived a poor pathetic agrarian existence until China eased the reigns and allowed CAPITALISM to enter into the country. Now, China is booming thanks to CAPITALISM.

If my methodology is sophomoric, yours is moronic.

Just sayin...

The casualties of the Great Cultural Revolution, while regrettable, have nothing to do with the efficacy of the Chinese socialist economy. An irrelevant bit of right wing hysteria. Your grasp of the development of the Chinese economy in the 20th century is inconsistent with the known facts.

The idea that capitalism entered China recently is absurd. The Chinese economy was capitalist for centuries -- those centuries that you describe as poor and pathetic. It wasn't until 1949, when a totalitarian form of socialism under the Communist Party of China took control, that hundreds of millions of Chinese were lifted out of poverty and China "stood up" on the world's stage as a major power.

The fact that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China allows tightly controlled foreign investment does not mean that China is a capitalist country. You seem to have no idea of the sectors of the Chinese economy under direct control of the Government of China, the Communist Party or the People's Liberation Army.

Your observations are simplistic right-wing propaganda ludicrously disguised as historical analysis. Trick or treat!

Ahhhh, I love you progressives. You can blissfully gloss over the deaths of over a hundred million people as "regrettable" and no doubt necessary to further the goals of socialism, but those who died, and their relatives who survived I think would not use that term. Furthermore every large collectivist country, and even some of the small ones, has had to resort to mass murder to force the natives into compliance.

Your assertion that the Chinese economy was capitalist is ludicrous, as are the majority of your arguments. I have full knowledge of how the government of China controls the economy. Far more than you it seems as i refuse to purchase items made in China as I know that they are operated by the various armies of China. The North is controlled by NORINCO or the Northern Army of China and the Southern Army of China controls Poly Technologies.

This is all well known to those of us with a brain. We also feel that the wholesale murder of millions of people is not "regrettable" but a crime against humanity which you clearly do not.

I wish you could hold off on the personal attacks as I am almost incapable of letting them slide by unanswered, but I'' try on this one.
The economy of China is not reflected in the excesses of Mao's Great Cultural Revolution and more than America's free market capitalism is reflected in the genocide of Native American peoples. An economy is made up of macroeconomic and microeconomic structures and organizations. War crimes are not economic structures.

If you think it ludicrous to describe the economy of pre-revoltuon China as capitalist, what term would you propose instead?

Your boycott of products produced by companies operated by the Chinese military is as laudable as it is ineffective. I can't imagine how you think these companies are evidence of a capitalist economy in China. Do you understand that the Chinese military is a branch of the Chines government?

I'm going to ignore the personal remarks for now. I'll wait to see your answer to the specific issues I have cited:

What kind of economy prevailed in pre-Revolutionary China?
How does ownership of manufacturing plants by the PLA constitute a capitalist economy?
Do you wish to stick to a discussion of the issues or are you up for a slanging match?

The capitalistic part of the equation is where the Chinese government allows the people to make things and sell on their own. Pre revolutionary China was based on a agrarian economy dominated by warlords who the Nationalists under Chiang Kai Shek had only partially brought under control. There was a market economy (about 1/3 of total GDP) that owes most of its existence to the Mongols who imposed it on the Chinese after they were conquered. Of course part of that was agrarian in nature. Cotton had not been grown in any quantity prior to the Mongols who wanted the silk to exported thus limiting its use in China.

The multinational corporations and Chinese government owned factories are not the capitalistic parts I was referring to. Below is a link to a excellent study on how China is wrestling with capitalism.


Paradoxes of Prosperity in China’s New Capitalism


Paradoxes of Prosperity in China’s New Capitalism | ten Brink | Journal of Current Chinese Affairs

 

[Indofred]

and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked.

You never will.
Ever since Proudhon's pathetic "The great are only great because we are on our knees. Let us rise!", the lazy and incompetent have been looking for a way to get a load of cash they didn't earn, usually by executing the hard working people who did earn their money.

They tend to assume the victorious 'workers' will pull together to make a better world for the people, totally forgetting they're a bunch of lazy idiots without a clue.

Then Napoleon the pig always rises to the top, oppressing the idiots that gave him the means to grab power.

That's where the far left fools always go wrong - they assume all people are born equal - epic bullshit as people are not, and never will be equal.
Some will always be better than others, and they will always enrich themselves whilst the prols moan about the world's winners in the nearest bar.

Socialism is an amazingly stupid ideal, and one that can never work.

Get out there and work to be the best instead of assuming the world owes you a living, or the rich should pay for your beer.

 

[danielpalos]

dears, our US form of Socialism is the best in the world.

 

[Fishlore]

Your methodology is sophomoric. Tiny Denmark and huge China have both enjoyed the benefits of socialism for many years. Of course, capitalism isn't failing in most economies either. We suffered a collapse due crooked mortgages by the biggest banks, a scam which wounded the economies of countries naive enough to trust the US government's bank regulations. The whole idea of an economic system failing is childish. That isn't the way history works. I'm glad you find all this amusing. Those who, like you, get all their ideas from right wing talk shows have real trouble finding anything to smile about.

They have? Tell that to the 150 million that Mao had killed during the Cultural Revolution. The overwhelming majority of Chinese lived a poor pathetic agrarian existence until China eased the reigns and allowed CAPITALISM to enter into the country. Now, China is booming thanks to CAPITALISM.

If my methodology is sophomoric, yours is moronic.

Just sayin...

The casualties of the Great Cultural Revolution, while regrettable, have nothing to do with the efficacy of the Chinese socialist economy. An irrelevant bit of right wing hysteria. Your grasp of the development of the Chinese economy in the 20th century is inconsistent with the known facts.

The idea that capitalism entered China recently is absurd. The Chinese economy was capitalist for centuries -- those centuries that you describe as poor and pathetic. It wasn't until 1949, when a totalitarian form of socialism under the Communist Party of China took control, that hundreds of millions of Chinese were lifted out of poverty and China "stood up" on the world's stage as a major power.

The fact that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China allows tightly controlled foreign investment does not mean that China is a capitalist country. You seem to have no idea of the sectors of the Chinese economy under direct control of the Government of China, the Communist Party or the People's Liberation Army.

Your observations are simplistic right-wing propaganda ludicrously disguised as historical analysis. Trick or treat!

Ahhhh, I love you progressives. You can blissfully gloss over the deaths of over a hundred million people as "regrettable" and no doubt necessary to further the goals of socialism, but those who died, and their relatives who survived I think would not use that term. Furthermore every large collectivist country, and even some of the small ones, has had to resort to mass murder to force the natives into compliance.

Your assertion that the Chinese economy was capitalist is ludicrous, as are the majority of your arguments. I have full knowledge of how the government of China controls the economy. Far more than you it seems as i refuse to purchase items made in China as I know that they are operated by the various armies of China. The North is controlled by NORINCO or the Northern Army of China and the Southern Army of China controls Poly Technologies.

This is all well known to those of us with a brain. We also feel that the wholesale murder of millions of people is not "regrettable" but a crime against humanity which you clearly do not.

I wish you could hold off on the personal attacks as I am almost incapable of letting them slide by unanswered, but I'' try on this one.
The economy of China is not reflected in the excesses of Mao's Great Cultural Revolution and more than America's free market capitalism is reflected in the genocide of Native American peoples. An economy is made up of macroeconomic and microeconomic structures and organizations. War crimes are not economic structures.

If you think it ludicrous to describe the economy of pre-revoltuon China as capitalist, what term would you propose instead?

Your boycott of products produced by companies operated by the Chinese military is as laudable as it is ineffective. I can't imagine how you think these companies are evidence of a capitalist economy in China. Do you understand that the Chinese military is a branch of the Chines government?

I'm going to ignore the personal remarks for now. I'll wait to see your answer to the specific issues I have cited:

What kind of economy prevailed in pre-Revolutionary China?
How does ownership of manufacturing plants by the PLA constitute a capitalist economy?
Do you wish to stick to a discussion of the issues or are you up for a slanging match?

The capitalistic part of the equation is where the Chinese government allows the people to make things and sell on their own. Pre revolutionary China was based on a agrarian economy dominated by warlords who the Nationalists under Chiang Kai Shek had only partially brought under control. There was a market economy (about 1/3 of total GDP) that owes most of its existence to the Mongols who imposed it on the Chinese after they were conquered. Of course part of that was agrarian in nature. Cotton had not been grown in any quantity prior to the Mongols who wanted the silk to exported thus limiting its use in China.

The multinational corporations and Chinese government owned factories are not the capitalistic parts I was referring to. Below is a link to a excellent study on how China is wrestling with capitalism.


Paradoxes of Prosperity in China’s New Capitalism


Paradoxes of Prosperity in China’s New Capitalism | ten Brink | Journal of Current Chinese Affairs

The view that the Chinese economy of todaycan be understood as a variegated form of state-permeated capitalism that at the same time is deeply integrated into world economic processes in now way precludes the possibility that the Chinese economy in the 20th century was a different variety of capitalism, i.e. capitalism after all.

My grandparents were friends with the Chang family whose summer home was in the same town as theirs. Those "warlords" and Kuomintang politicians who ran the Chinese government and much of the Chinese economy were capitalists as much as and much the same way as Rockefeller, Ford or Carnegie were capitalists.

There are important differences between China's New Capitalism and its old capitalism but both are surely forms of capitalism.

 

[oldsoul]

In essence, the commons means everything that belongs to all of us, and the many ways we work together to use these assets to build a better society. This encompasses fresh air and clean water, public spaces and public services, the Internet and the airwaves, our legal system, scientific knowledge, biodiversity, language, artistic traditions, fashion styles, cuisines and much more. Taken together, it represents a vast inheritance bequeathed equally to every human—and one that, if used wisely, will provide for future generations.

Tragically, this wealth is being stolen in the name of economic efficiency and global competitiveness. As the disparity between the world’s richest individuals and everyone else grows, a massive takeover of the commons is occurring. Through privatization schemes, land grabs, excessive copyright and patenting claims, no-new-taxes policies, neocolonial globalization and the gutting of government services, we are losing what is rightfully ours. These radical policies inflict economic pain but also diminish the natural world, our sense of community and the ability to participate in decisions affecting our future.

But all is not lost. We still depend on and take advantage of the commons every minute of the day, from the tap water we use to brush our teeth in the morning to the fairy tales we tell our kids at bedtime. We have no choice but to redouble efforts to save the commons in its many forms, from essential public services in our communities to net neutrality to a spirit of cooperation in our everyday lives. As awareness of what belongs to all of us grows among progressives, the commons is gradually emerging as both a critique and a strategy to challenge the dominance of market-based values at every level of our society.

I think we agree more that you think. I agree our culture is under attack, and I agree that it takes a grass-roots effort to get it back. Where we disagree is on the role of Government in this "equation". I, for one, entrust "We the people" over the government.

Also, in a free and democratic Republic, such as the U.S., the people get the government they deserve. To maintain a free republic it requires a well educated and active people. The left knows this, especially the far left, and that is why many of them are, and have been for decades, so desperate to get and maintain control of education. An educated populace cannot be ruled, only governed. They are also, doing everything they can to silence any opposition.

Democrats wish everyone voted. Republicans wish only the rich voted.

I suppose that's why a Republican controlled congress passed the civil rights act of 1964. And why a Republican is credited with freeing the slaves.

Oh, and I almost forgot Jim Crow, supported, mostly, by Democrats...

Talk about intellectual dishonesty. But I wonder if you even know it.

Care to back up your statement. Maybe you can explain to me how I have history wrong...

 

[oldsoul]

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 benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

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 benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

ROTFL. Royal Dutch Shell plc, commonly known as Shell, is an Anglo–Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom. Denmark isn't the Netherlands. What grade are you in? On the other hand, Budweiser Beer is now owned by a Danish company. Denmark's wealth is not based on extractive industries like oil. Denmark has more than its share of millionaires and big, international corporations. Socialism is far from incompatible with capitalism or millionaire businessmen. The difference is the responsibility of every Dane for his or her share of the Danish community. Denmark also has a King and a bunch of noble families.

Denmark owns pretty large quantities of RDS stock. They get dividends from them. That's one of many oil based income streams they enjoy from the petroleum market. Add to that they are the major manufacturer for the RDS and other North Sea oil based companies and it becomes quite plain why they are able to support their extensive welfare economy.

According to data provided by the World Bank (List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
the USA ranks 9th in GDP per capita at 54,629. Denmark ranks 17th at
44,862. Why, sensible citizens may well ask, does the USA, with a gross domestic product per capita that is almost 122% that of tiny Denmark have millions of its people living in poverty with sub-standard schools for its kids, inadequate medical care, declining wage rates, inadequate retirement plans and an upward mobility index far lower than not only Denmark but most of the countries of Europe? Why is our homicide rate many times that of Denmark? Why is our incarceration rate the highest in the world? Why are mass murders, a monthly occurrence here, almost unknown in Denmark. Why are our air and water far more polluted? ... and on and on...

Talk radio blowhards pontificate about the failure of socialism. The real question is why has American free market capitalism failed so suddenly and so dramatically?

It all goes back to religion. Our country was founded by and for a religious people. As several of our founders said, it is wholly inadaquate for uneducated and/or non-religious people. Without a moral compass, our system of government is doomed to failure as society lends itself to moral relativism.

 

[Fishlore]

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 benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

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 benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

ROTFL. Royal Dutch Shell plc, commonly known as Shell, is an Anglo–Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom. Denmark isn't the Netherlands. What grade are you in? On the other hand, Budweiser Beer is now owned by a Danish company. Denmark's wealth is not based on extractive industries like oil. Denmark has more than its share of millionaires and big, international corporations. Socialism is far from incompatible with capitalism or millionaire businessmen. The difference is the responsibility of every Dane for his or her share of the Danish community. Denmark also has a King and a bunch of noble families.

Denmark owns pretty large quantities of RDS stock. They get dividends from them. That's one of many oil based income streams they enjoy from the petroleum market. Add to that they are the major manufacturer for the RDS and other North Sea oil based companies and it becomes quite plain why they are able to support their extensive welfare economy.

According to data provided by the World Bank (List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
the USA ranks 9th in GDP per capita at 54,629. Denmark ranks 17th at
44,862. Why, sensible citizens may well ask, does the USA, with a gross domestic product per capita that is almost 122% that of tiny Denmark have millions of its people living in poverty with sub-standard schools for its kids, inadequate medical care, declining wage rates, inadequate retirement plans and an upward mobility index far lower than not only Denmark but most of the countries of Europe? Why is our homicide rate many times that of Denmark? Why is our incarceration rate the highest in the world? Why are mass murders, a monthly occurrence here, almost unknown in Denmark. Why are our air and water far more polluted? ... and on and on...

Talk radio blowhards pontificate about the failure of socialism. The real question is why has American free market capitalism failed so suddenly and so dramatically?

It all goes back to religion. Our country was founded by and for a religious people. As several of our founders said, it is wholly inadaquate for uneducated and/or non-religious people. Without a moral compass, our system of government is doomed to failure as society lends itself to moral relativism.

Your view of the foundation is interesting and much en vogue among the radio right these days. When you speak of the "founding of our country" are you thinking of the Articles of Confederation or its successor document, our current U.S. constitution? The nation so established was a federation of over a dozen colonies, several of which had been in existence for a century and a half before the amalgamation.

Precision in this matter is important as the creation of a nation out of pre-existing colonies and provinces was the work of a small elite, many of whose most influential members were Deists or freethinkers. The colonies being joined had several different established churches, principally Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers and Anglicans. Only the first two of these got along with each other tolerably well. It made common as well as political sense to draw the line on religion below the level of the new, federal government.

So, while it is true that some colonies and provinces were established for specific reasons of church polity (e.g. Massachusetts) and even more had some form of established church with varying degrees of tolerance for dissenters, no one involved in the formation of the United States believed that a religious mission or establishment at the federal level was appropriate or even doable.

 

[oldsoul]

Your view of the foundation is interesting and much en vogue among the radio right these days.

No, it is truth, try accually reading the Federalist Papers. It cuts to the truth of the mindset of those who wrote the documents we rely on to govern ourselves to this day.

When you speak of the "founding of our country" are you thinking of the Articles of Confederation or its successor document, our current U.S. constitution?

Umm... Yes, both accually. I was specificly refering to the constitution, but the same holds true for the Articles of Confederation, as well as most, if not all, of the original 13 colonies' founding documents.

The colonies being joined had several different established churches, principally Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers and Anglicans. Only the first two of these got along with each other tolerably well. It made common as well as political sense to draw the line on religion below the level of the new, federal government.

And nowhere did I say that a specific religion was required, merely that a religion is required. do you understand the difference? Or are you one of those fools that think freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion.

So, while it is true that some colonies and provinces were established for specific reasons of church polity (e.g. Massachusetts) and even more had some form of established church with varying degrees of tolerance for dissenters, no one involved in the formation of the United States believed that a religious mission or establishment at the federal level was appropriate or even doable.

Hence the freedom of religion amendment. Wow, can't beleive you are accually making my arguement for me. Especially after trying to make it sound like I was just following the herd, and using an "en vogue" argument. Unreal, just unreal, what the left has done to undermine and distort what our founding fathers said, and meant.

 

[Fishlore]

Your view of the foundation is interesting and much en vogue among the radio right these days.

No, it is truth, try accually reading the Federalist Papers. It cuts to the truth of the mindset of those who wrote the documents we rely on to govern ourselves to this day.

When you speak of the "founding of our country" are you thinking of the Articles of Confederation or its successor document, our current U.S. constitution?

Umm... Yes, both accually. I was specificly refering to the constitution, but the same holds true for the Articles of Confederation, as well as most, if not all, of the original 13 colonies' founding documents.

The colonies being joined had several different established churches, principally Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers and Anglicans. Only the first two of these got along with each other tolerably well. It made common as well as political sense to draw the line on religion below the level of the new, federal government.

And nowhere did I say that a specific religion was required, merely that a religion is required. do you understand the difference? Or are you one of those fools that think freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion.

So, while it is true that some colonies and provinces were established for specific reasons of church polity (e.g. Massachusetts) and even more had some form of established church with varying degrees of tolerance for dissenters, no one involved in the formation of the United States believed that a religious mission or establishment at the federal level was appropriate or even doable.

Hence the freedom of religion amendment. Wow, can't beleive you are accually making my arguement for me. Especially after trying to make it sound like I was just following the herd, and using an "en vogue" argument. Unreal, just unreal, what the left has done to undermine and distort what our founding fathers said, and meant.

I wish you wouldn't try condescending sarcasm and would stick to the topic. I have to struggle to stay high minded when people say things like "try actually reading the Federalist Papers." I have, in fact, read them and published three scholarly articles about them in The Journal of American History. The Federalist Papers are not part of the Constitution, they are a series of essays in the form of letters published in newspapers as part of the national debate over the new Constitution. I'm sure you know this. The opinions expressed in the FP are not legal or judicial. They are more like the presidential debates on TV. Why do you drag them into the debate about constitutional law with some claim about "mindset"? You surely know better than this. Law is not a mind reading exercise. Why do you want to address me in that condescending tone? Is it because you can't engage with my post so you attempt to dismiss it and establish yourself as some kind of authority? That is not helpful to me nor, I suspect, of much interest to our colleagues.

Have you any Supreme Court decisions to support your interpretation about freedom of religion versus freedom from religion? How about the idea that states must mandate religious practice? Massachusetts, as I'm sure you know, did not disestablish the Congregational Church until 1832, yet it allowed other denominations to flourish and had no requirement to belong to any of them. I would like to see your evidence for your claims. Really, I've studied early American history for many years. I'm curious. I'm eager. Bring it on.

 

[danielpalos]

the right usually has nothing but fallacy to work with while proclaiming they are for the "gospel Truth" of any given issue.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked.

Israel

Israel gets billions in foreign aid every year courtesy of you and me and everyone else in this country who pays taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism works well in the US; the least wealthy can even buy steak and lobster on their EBT cards.

 

[MarathonMike]

The only answer to the OP I read was Denmark, all other countries referenced have varying degrees of Socialistic policies, but are not primarily a Socialist country. So Denmark is small (population ~5 million) and extremely non-diverse with 90% of the country being of Danish descent. Personal income tax rates are over 60%. It's nearly an island and is nestled in one of the most benign corners of the world. So yes, I think it's fair to say Socialism works for the Danes. But they exist in a near bubble of perfect conditions for their form of Socialism. It will be interesting to see what happens when the migrant crisis comes to their border.

 

[danielpalos]

Our form of Socialism is the Best in the World; it even provides steak and lobster for the least wealthy on their EBT cards.

 

[dblack]