Socialism works every time it's tried.

Socialism has worked every time it has been tried. The primary goal of socialism is to minimize inequity. The primary goal of socialism is to equalize outcomes. To this end, socialism has been successful on a scale unmatched by any other socioeconomic system. Unfortunately, the only place that people are equal is in the graveyard. That is why socialism, in all of its variations, put over one hundred million people in the graveyard during the last century.

Socialism's secondary goal is to eliminate the profit motive. Again, socialism was able to accomplish this goal time and time again by simply putting those who seek profit into the graveyard.

Capitalists have accused socialism of being a failure because socialism failed to accomplish capitalistic goals. Socialism's failure to provide the same level of wellbeing as other socioeconomic systems can provide is no good measure of socialism. Maximizing wellbeing, at the expense of equity, is the goal of capitalism. Minimizing inequity, at the expense of wellbeing, is the goal of socialism; and to this end, socialism has been very successful. Just ask the over one hundred million … Oh, never mind, they're dead; ask someone else.

 

position

 

position

 

I don't agree. That would reduce socialism to a Rawlsian social welfare function. The goal of socialism is to engineer a rational economic paradigm, based on democracy within the workplace. It acknowledges that economic efficiency and equity go hand in hand.

I disagree again. Socialism and the market will go hand in hand. Its worker control and ownership of the means of production that matters. The profit motive can be maintained, ensuring that planning problems are minimised.

I disagree again. Capitalists simply want to maintain an inefficient paradigm, given they benefit from the economic rents.

Schumpeter refers to the success of capitalism generating socialism. You haven't considered any aspect of economic dynamics.

Wrong again. There is no maximisation of well-being under capitalism. It feeds off economic inefficiency. And there is no minimisation of inequity under socialism. The income distribution will be dependent on worker democracy (plus the impact of entrepreneurial behaviour, given market socialist perspectives).

For a fake thread, couldn't you at least get something right?

 

Socialism works but look at the reaction it brings. I could cut your head off and claim I prevented you from dying of brain cancer.

 

"The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery" .... Winston Churchill

Capitalism results in some people earning $100,000 per year and some earning $20,000 (based on the need for their skills). Socialism is happy if everyone receives the same $25,000 per year. That is equal and "fair".

In Cuba, everyone gets the same quality medical treatment, where they go to hospitals that have no aspirin or band-aids. Very nice.

 

Perhaps not a good idea to quote someone that said "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph" and "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes". Makes you look dodgy!

Utter drivel! There is no notion of equality in outcome in socialism. There is, mind you, a genuine mechanism that delivers equality of opportunity.

How's the amenable mortality rate in the US looking?

 

1) Churchill was one of the wisest men of the 20th century. Eminently preferable to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Castro.

2) Socialism is all about outcomes, at least in the U.S. The left's primary desire is to equalize incomes through a myriad of government programs and a severely progressive tax.

3) Americans enjoyed the best healthcare in the world, at least until Obamacare began a long slow decline. Our stats are skewed down by the presence of 22 million illegals and a black underclass that refuses to join the mainstream culture.

 

You think "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph" and "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" are wise comments? How many did he kill in India do you think? Why are you a fanatic of an imperialist?

You don't understand what socialism means do you?

Please don't lie. Amenable mortality has been long term problem.

 

Envy is an intolerance of others having more than oneself. Envious people will settle for much less than ambitious people will settle for as long as they are unaware of others having more than they have. There is a world of difference between ambition and discontent. Contentment requires a modicum of ambition. Contentment without ambition is nothing but complacency. Envious people are discontent, complacent and most often some of the least accomplished among us.

 

You forgot an argument. Amazes me how folk think they can deal in cliche

 

Yet Capitalism is the only system that brings people out of poverty.

 

Brazil & Venezuela used to be among the most wealthy and prosperous countries in the world until they converted to socialism. China and Vietnam were among the poorest countries in the world until they switched to capitalism! The Eastern European countries established capitalist economies once they were freed from the slavery of the Soviet Union and there economies are flourishing. The problem with socialism, is that you will eventually run out of other people's money! Think of it this way, what happens when there are more pie eaters than are pie makers?

 

Extraordinarily naive. See, for example, the need for interventionism as a means to enable economic development. Check out Chang's history piece and 'pulling away the ladder', where market fundamentalism maintains poverty and deprivation.

 

Exactly, Socialist wont be happy until everyone is poor and starving.

 

Extraordinarily naive. No system has ever eliminated poverty but our raises poverty to a level that is miles above world poverty.

 

Notice you didn't actually respond to the point. This isn't about eliminating poverty. It is how government interventionism has been behind the world economies as we know it. It is how market fundamentalism, which you aimlessly cheer, has been behind restricting economic development and maintaining economic misery.

 

I disagree. Long before the final curtain call there are always a few filthy rich at the top who impose their will and beliefs on the masses who have little.

Like the president of Cuba charging for relief food for victims of natural disaster. He's a filthy red Communist of course, but you can't get there without an injection of socialism.

 

Cuba has very good doctors and healthcare.

 

We can all discuss your fear and loathing of Socialism a few months after you start drawing your SS checks and sign up for Medicare. Strange how quickly folks embrace it later on in life.

 

Their hospitals routinely run out of aspirin and band-aids.

 

Okay, just want to use a fixed established standard:

Am I allowed to use the Social Democratic Nations of Scandanvia as an example of socialism working?

If yes, then they serve as a counter example to the OP.

If no, then the Right cannot call universal healthcare, strong regulations, high taxes, welfare programs, or anything else the Scandanvian nations possess and that Progressives advocate for America as being Socialist.

 

Their doctors are much sought after all over South and Central America.

 

"How much does a doctor like you make in Cuba?
I will tell you something: I would have liked to stay in Cuba. I left because I could barely afford to buy a single egg to eat a day.

I remember the Argentinean crisis of 2001, when the banks froze people’s accounts, and a man on TV held up a package of spaghetti and said, “Look at all we have to eat!” When I saw that, I remembered what we experienced in Cuba when the Russians left in the 1990s, and the terrible famine we went through. With a pack of spaghetti, I would have been the happiest man on Earth.

In 1993 and 1994, the hunger was terrible. At that time, I earned US$18 per month, in a country where prices are the same as everywhere else. I have a Cuban friend living in Chile who is a dermatologist. He used to tell the shoemaker, “Today, I’ll buy only the left shoe.” He was kidding, but it had some degree of truth.

I used my bicycle to visit my patients’ homes. It was my only means of transportation, and changing a flat tire cost CUP$400, which was roughly my monthly income.

Then I started listening to Radio Martí, and a friend of mine, who happens to be a prosecutor, told me I should stop [criticizing the regime], because they would put me in jail. There is no separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary in Cuba."

http://www.therealcuba.com/?p=1185

 

Amazing how many people are so scared the US is going to suddenly turn socialist. The sky is not falling people. The US will never be a socialist country