When has socialism ever succeeded? One time? (1 Viewer)

[zimmer]

When has socialism ever succeeded? One time?

One... time?

O n e t i m e?

Ever?

 

[ARealConservative]

When has socialism ever succeeded? One time?

One... time?

O n e t i m e?

Ever?

my marriage is a success.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Well, if we're defining socialism as government ownership of the means of production, ostensibly as a proxy for the citizens, then socialism has succeeded many times...though I also suppose it depends on your definition of success.

Socialism was the economic form of the Roman Empire, for instance. There was free enterprise, but all of it was at the discretion and planning of the office of the emperor through the domains of the senate. Most critical industries, including farming, masonry, metalurgy, logging, tanning, and butchering were all licensed and administered by the government, and the government owned and distributed the products of those industries (along with many others) among the citizens of the empire.

Socialism was the economic form of the Persian Empire as well. And the Egyptians. The Chinese have employed it to great success throughout their history.

Market economics, on the other hand, was what came about at the collapse of the Roman Empire, and it quickly led to feudalism. However, until recently, it has been used with good success in America.

I'm sure your point was supposed to be that socialism has never worked, but I'm afraid that's not correct.

What makes an economy work, or not, really doesn't have anything to do with whether it's socialist or not. It has much more to do with the decisions made by those with economic power, regardless of whether those people are in the government, or the captains of private industry and finance.

 

[theTANTALIZER]

It's ideas succeed its way into the US.

When has socialism ever succeeded? One time?

One... time?

O n e t i m e?

Ever?

 

[niftydrifty]

socialism means many things. what kinda socialism do want to hear about?

 

[Arch Enemy]

When has socialism ever succeeded? One time?

One... time?

O n e t i m e?

Ever?

How do you ever measure the success of an ideology that's fused into so many others?
Do you measure an ideologies success based on how many people it killed, how many people it converted, how many people still believe in it today, how many people in all still believe in it, the wealth the political institutions acquired based on the ideology..

What zimmer, what.

 

[RiverDad]

No, it's never succeeded because people yearn for freedom and socialism depends on coercion and the stripping away of freedom in order to exist in its varied guises.

 

[ashurbanipal]

It should be obvious by now that capitalism also relies on such devices.

 

[obvious Child]

socialism means many things. what kinda socialism do want to hear about?

Indeed. Far too many people here define Socialism as they please, leaving out obvious Socialist programs they like out of the definition.

Socialism here has about as an effective definition as Communism, aka, whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want for whatever reason I want.

 

[niftydrifty]

Indeed. Far too many people here define Socialism as they please, leaving out obvious Socialist programs they like out of the definition.

Socialism here has about as an effective definition as Communism, aka, whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want for whatever reason I want.

it's amusing when people forget that the US has a mixed economy. a little of this, and a little of that. it serves us well, and I believe it works. when the tax rate moves a few percentage points, or when more money gets spent, all of a sudden, it's "socialism."

it makes no sense. it's a non-argument.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Norway is a socialist nation and its per-capita GDP is 10k a year higher than ours is. So its obviously succeeding there.

We have certainly done better with our post war mixed economy than we have with the pre-1930s laissez faire system, so its succeeding fairly well here.

Canada enjoys similar standards of living to ours so its obviously succeeding there as well.

China has averaged 10% plus GDP growth rates so in terms of economic growth its doing pretty good there as well (Of course China is not doing so good on the Human Rights front).

One can come up with numerous examples of socialist nations that enjoy either economic growth that exceeds ours, or a standard of living that is on par with ours.

However, there is but one true free market on the face of the earth, and thats Hong Kong. Its very successful, yet it also depends on an authoritarian aspect as well. You see the most free market on earth also requires its citizens to contribute to private sector funds for a social safety net.

What has never existed is a successful untra-conservative / libertarian system. You wont find a single one anywhere in the world that has a standard of living on par with ours or economic growth rates that exceed ours.

 

[Tucker Case]

I usually have no problems getting my mail, for the most part. They do pretty good.

 

[obvious Child]

it's amusing when people forget that the US has a mixed economy. a little of this, and a little of that. it serves us well, and I believe it works. when the tax rate moves a few percentage points, or when more money gets spent, all of a sudden, it's "socialism."

it makes no sense. it's a non-argument.

No, it's a partisan argument. Does the US practice Socialism? Yes. Has it practiced it for decades? Yes. Have both parties contributed to it greatly? Yes. Have some of the largest Socialist bills been enacted or originated by the Republicans? Yes.

What I find interesting is that the "It's Socialism" crow doesn't say anything about when the US raised taxes in the past to pay for wars. Apparently massive taxation and spending for government controlled means of production and distribution isn't Socialism. Exactly as I said, if you like it, it's not Socialism independent of whether it objectively is.

Think about public education, primary that is. That's socialism. Taxation to provide a service to all children that is controlled, produced and distributed by the government. No one calls for its removal because it's Socialism. Imagine the social unrest if millions of kids weren't in school every day.

And as Rathi pointed out and so many refused to admit, every nation requires some level of Socialism to function as a society. Don't like Socialism, well, how well did 1990s Somalia work out? :rofl

But frankly speaking, this whole discussion is rather futile when we introduce people who unilaterally redefine words as they see fit.

 

[niftydrifty]

I usually have no problems getting my mail, for the most part. They do pretty good.

and the library is pretty awesome too. last time i checked, mine was still there.

 

[winston53660]

I usually have no problems getting my mail, for the most part. They do pretty good.

Yeah it is wonderful to get my bills and junk mail:mrgreen:

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Norway is a socialist nation

You mean "welfare state"?

 

[Kushinator]

Norway is a socialist nation and its per-capita GDP is 10k a year higher than ours is. So its obviously succeeding there.

And their external debt/capita is astounding...

We have certainly done better with our post war mixed economy than we have with the pre-1930s laissez faire system, so its succeeding fairly well here.

Are you saying our mixed economy is more to credit our recent success than technological innovation? If so, you are going to be hard pressed to prove it.

China has averaged 10% plus GDP growth rates so in terms of economic growth its doing pretty good there as well (Of course China is not doing so good on the Human Rights front).

Those commies are damn good capitalists:mrgreen:

One can come up with numerous examples of socialist nations that enjoy either economic growth that exceeds ours, or a standard of living that is on par with ours.

Comparing growth of developing countries with that of highly developed countries is dishonest. Income per capita is also a loaded term, which is easily countered with some other statistic. Economic importance (GDP x GDP/capita) has declined since 1970, yet many people would agree that the standard of living in 2009 is much better than 1970. Further analysis is required to make such claims...

What has never existed is a successful untra-conservative / libertarian system. You wont find a single one anywhere in the world that has a standard of living on par with ours or economic growth rates that exceed ours.

Yet when has a democratic society allowed it to flourish?

By William Sumner

The trouble is that a democratic government is in greater danger than any other of becoming paternal, for it is sure of itself, and ready to undertake anything, and its power is excessive and pitiless against dissentients.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

When has socialism ever succeeded? One time?

One... time?

O n e t i m e?

Ever?

There is a problem with the OP. No description or definition of what he is referring. But let me make a supposition. The OP is referring to PURE socialism. Nothing else, no capitalism at all. If this is accurate, then the answer is never. And it never could. But not for the reasons that the OP would probably assume.

A purely socialist ideological nation would fail, not because it is not viable politically or economically. It would fail because it is not viable psychologically. Humans have several motivating factors in their lives. A number are innate, such as survival. Some are not. One non-innate motivating factor that many humans have is greed. Now, I am not talking about the desire to have more money, though that may be part of it. I am talking about the desire to strive to get ahead, or to improve oneself. A socialistic society aims towards equalitarianism. What this does is thwart an individual's desire to improve oneself, instead forcing them to only consider the outcomes of the group. All it takes is one person to decide that they want a "bigger piece of the pie" than another, and the purely socialist society starts to crumble. This is why many "socialist" societies become totalitarian, with a huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots. The "haves" have bucked socialism, as they have wanted to get ahead. They then prevent the "have-nots" from moving up the ladder by forcing a supposed socialist society on them, which, in reality, is not socialist at all, but is, in fact, totalitarian.

Interestingly enough, pretty much all extreme or pure versions of socio-politico-economic theories fall into the same problems, because of human psychology. Liberatarianism, a theory that purports individualism, classically the opposite of socialism, in it's pure form, would fail for the same reasons. Also, Reagan's "trickle-down" economics didn't work; the greed on top didn't want things to "trickle down". The liberal policies of Carter weren't much better, if not worse.

All types of extreme viewpoints, from socialism, to conservatism, to communisim, to liberalism would fail. Human psychology, diversity, and differences in people could not be accounted for. Each of these "pure" socieities would be destined for some sort of totalitarianism, and or, would find some underclass having little or no role or rights. This is why the most successful nations, like the US, are a mix of many different ideological tenets.To consider US economic policies to be purely socialist is absurd, just like considering them to be purely liberatarian or even capitalist. But ignoring that each ideology, in part, makes up what we have in this great nation, is equally absurd.

 

[Wessexman]

Socialism hasn't actually been defined in the OP.

Socialism is a pretty broad idea ranging from Blanquists, Leninist-Marxists and other vanguardesque state socialists to democratic socialists like the old British labour party and some versions of Marixsm to co-operativists and Utopians to guild socialists, libertarian socialists and anarchists.

I'm not sure you could all the likes of Norway seriously socialist in any sense actual socialists use.

 

[zimmer]

Socialism hasn't actually been defined in the OP.

Socialism is a pretty broad idea ranging from Blanquists, Leninist-Marxists and other vanguardesque state socialists to democratic socialists like the old British labour party and some versions of Marixsm to co-operativists and Utopians to guild socialists, libertarian socialists and anarchists.

Lots of folks saying define socialism.
I'm saying show me where it worked over the long haul.

You have several continents of it being tried.
One example? :shrug:

I don't care where or the splitting of socialism as a decoy.
This is an open ended offer to illustrate where it has worked.

It's open to the lib/socialists to let us know it works somewhere.

Because it doesn't we get this dance.

The music has stopped, now let's have some concrete examples of socialist success.

 

[niftydrifty]

Lots of folks saying define socialism.
I'm saying show me where it worked over the long haul.

You have several continents of it being tried.
One example? :shrug:

I don't care where or the splitting of socialism as a decoy.
This is an open ended offer to illustrate where it has worked.

It's open to the lib/socialists to let us know it works somewhere.

Because it doesn't we get this dance.

The music has stopped, now let's have some concrete examples of socialist success.

OK, define "it." no dance, we just can't assume what you mean.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And their external debt/capita is astounding...



Are you saying our mixed economy is more to credit our recent success than technological innovation? If so, you are going to be hard pressed to prove it.

Our mixed economy has certainly resulted in a moderation of the economic cycle in this country. Prior to going to a mixed economy, we averaged an economic depression every 25 years or so, yet since the 30s we have yet to have an economic depression under our mixed economy.

Also, many of those technological innovations resulted from public sector basic research funding.

Those commies are damn good capitalists:mrgreen:

True.

Comparing growth of developing countries with that of highly developed countries is dishonest. Income per capita is also a loaded term, which is easily countered with some other statistic. Economic importance (GDP x GDP/capita) has declined since 1970, yet many people would agree that the standard of living in 2009 is much better than 1970. Further analysis is required to make such claims...

Thats why its better to compare PPP GDP per capita than nominal.

Yet when has a democratic society allowed it to flourish?

Thats a great point. One can argue the merits of a system all they want, but in the end, for it to be a practical and successful economic system, people have to actually want it. As you point out, when has a democratic society chosen to allow a true libertarian / near total free market system? What is more damning to the notion of it than that?

 

[Kushinator]

Our mixed economy has certainly resulted in a moderation of the economic cycle in this country. Prior to going to a mixed economy, we averaged an economic depression every 25 years or so, yet since the 30s we have yet to have an economic depression under our mixed economy.

Prior to advent of high speed communication, people could not possess concisive knowledge in which to make rational decisions. As i have stated in another thread, any attempts to compare our current economic situation with that of the past is highly fallacious. Thousands of people were previously employed in duties which machines now perform, and with much greater efficiency and less long term costs. During depressions of the past, when demand decreased, so did the demand for labor, which made employment opportunities constrict with total output.

So far, machines have yet to complain to the pandering politician that they are unemployed.

Also, many of those technological innovations resulted from public sector basic research funding.

The public sector does not necessarily equate to socialism. The majority of research and undertaking capacity was through the bidding system, which included the private sector. If a technology was completely designed and produced without the use of the private sector, you might have a point. Therefore i ask you to provide such instances if they even exist.

That is why its better to compare PPP GDP per capita than nominal.

Again, that is a loaded term, because we are to assume a price floor and then build from there. All goods do not cost the same to produce, market, and neither do services.

Besides, according to the statistic you comply, the US is 10th, and the only nation that has a population exceeding 100 million. The next nation exceeding that population barrier is Japan, ranked 33rd.

Filtering out sheer population, or lack there of, from skewing the argument requires economic importance. To do so, multiply GDP x GDP/capita, and then compare the nations in the top tier of GDP/capita ppp.

Thats a great point. One can argue the merits of a system all they want, but in the end, for it to be a practical and successful economic system, people have to actually want it. As you point out, when has a democratic society chosen to allow a true libertarian / near total free market system? What is more damning to the notion of it than that?

That has much more to do with political control in regards to the size of government. Class warfare has been a tool for ages, starting from the feudal states in Europe. Now, the politicians have replaced the kings/aristocrats, while the wealthy replace the lords. Blending the working class in with the poor to demand tribute from the wealthy creates a dependent segment of the population. And since the rich are outnumbed by the non rich, how convenient we elect politicians who tax prosperity, to reward (help/make equal) those who refuse to engage in self-denial.

What is more virtuous: To sacrifice short run happiness with the hope of acquiring more later on, or to demand society owes assistance at every opportunity of despair?

 

[zimmer]

OK, define "it." no dance, we just can't assume what you mean.

Oh come on.
Governments all over the world have instituted all manner of socialist schemes.

Let me loosen up your thought process a bit.
After this a floodgate should bust...
Socialized medicine for example. No success stories to sing about? LOL

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Prior to advent of high speed communication, people could not possess concisive knowledge in which to make rational decisions. As i have stated in another thread, any attempts to compare our current economic situation with that of the past is highly fallacious. Thousands of people were previously employed in duties which machines now perform, and with much greater efficiency and less long term costs. During depressions of the past, when demand decreased, so did the demand for labor, which made employment opportunities constrict with total output.

So far, machines have yet to complain to the pandering politician that they are unemployed.



The public sector does not necessarily equate to socialism. The majority of research and undertaking capacity was through the bidding system, which included the private sector. If a technology was completely designed and produced without the use of the private sector, you might have a point. Therefore i ask you to provide such instances if they even exist.



Again, that is a loaded term, because we are to assume a price floor and then build from there. All goods do not cost the same to produce, market, and neither do services.

Besides, according to the statistic you comply, the US is 10th, and the only nation that has a population exceeding 100 million. The next nation exceeding that population barrier is Japan, ranked 33rd.

Filtering out sheer population, or lack there of, from skewing the argument requires economic importance. To do so, multiply GDP x GDP/capita, and then compare the nations in the top tier of GDP/capita ppp.



That has much more to do with political control in regards to the size of government. Class warfare has been a tool for ages, starting from the feudal states in Europe. Now, the politicians have replaced the kings/aristocrats, while the wealthy replace the lords. Blending the working class in with the poor to demand tribute from the wealthy creates a dependent segment of the population. And since the rich are outnumbed by the non rich, how convenient we elect politicians who tax prosperity, to reward (help/make equal) those who refuse to engage in self-denial.

What is more virtuous: To sacrifice short run happiness with the hope of acquiring more later on, or to demand society owes assistance at every opportunity of despair?

These are all philosophical differences though. The original question was to name examples of successful socialism.

If one defines success as having a standard of living similar to ours and a stable and working state where there are civil liberties protections in place, then there are tons of examples of nations with mixed economies (degrees of socialism) that are successful. After all, its not as if Canada is a failed state.

In the end, its not a question of comparing failed to successful nations as there are many ways to skin a cat, its a question of how one believes society and the economy should be organized.