Socialism works every time it's tried.

Venezuela!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Looks like if you are a socialist country the citizens have to like dog meat.

 

Norway!!!!!!!

 

False. A Rutgers University study found that worker co-ops are 4% more productive and 14% more profitable, on average, than equivalent traditional capitalist businesses.

Right. The US government is restricting travel there. On June 16, 2017, Trump announced a return to the strict policies on American travel to Cuba that existed before former Obama softened the country's stance in 2014.

No they won't. Trump has all but eliminated travel to Cuba. Do the research.

 

You think anti-socialists are well versed in socialist political economy? Crikey, even Hayek's complaints have been sidelined by socialist innovation.

 

What innovations do you speak of?
Like high speed trains that go across the ocean, or something?

 

Doesn’t socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

 

You're basically confirming that you aren't aware of the political economy. Not a surprise!

A recent example is how socialists have taken the socialist calculation debate and engineered compatibility between Austrian and Marxist concepts.

 

Well, to be honest - it's a mix of capitalism and socialism. A number of those who eventually succeed and prosper started out on government programs of assistance. VA loans, grants, publicly funded colleges and Universities. Even those who start businesses rely on goods brought in through publicly funded airports, sea ports and highway systems. They rely on publicly funded water systems and sewer systems. Their internet was developed through government grants and University systems.

Government money is the Kevin Bacon of the economy - sooner or later, we all benefit from government spending and some socialist programs. You don't live in an economic bubble.

 

Pure socialism works no better or worse than pure capitalism. Pure socialism leads to economic malaise, pure capitalism leads to an oligarchy of the biggest businesses or richest individuals. Hybrid systems work the best - it's just a matter of finding the best balance.

 

Social Security was extracted from me by the government without my consent. It is my money and by gosh I'm getting back every bit I can.....minus the interest I could have made on it had they not confiscated it in the 1st place. Yes, it is creeping socialism and it should be privatized like an HSA. I don't embrace SS but I'm geting it back because it was mine to begin with.

 

You mean Algore developed the internet through Government grants? I didn't know that!

 

Or a group of elitists that knows what's best for us and what rights to usurp.

 

I don't think you understand capitalism. There isn't a single corporation in the US that doesn't have to meet "human needs" in order to stay in business. Sure, some of them are propped up by generous government handouts or artificial price supports, but if they don't sell something, they will go out of business. As for "resources are used," again, you don't understand capitalism. Capitalism doesn't use resources, capitalism creates resources. Oil in the ground is useless. Capitalism digs it up and makes it valuable. A million dollars in a million hands is useless. Capitalism gathers it together and makes it valuable. (p.s. You also don't understand physics. Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, outside of a nuclear reaction. You cannot "use up" resources because the resources are still in existence, somewhere.)

All of which would require outright theft from the companies' rightful owners today.

It's a start in the right direction to admit that the state can't plan everything. Keep heading down that road and eventually you'll realize the state can't plan anything. Even general population trends change frequently, and local population trends change dramatically, so anything the government plans today, even if it has every fact correct, could be completely inadequate to the needs of tomorrow, because conditions change, and change rapidly. Capitalism deals with this through the profit motive... guess right, and your company will prosper. Guess wrong and your company will fail. And enough people will be guessing that at least one of them will be right and will be there to meet the needs of the future.

 

Thats what Stalin said.

 

No one has starved to death in the United States for lack of actual food since 1872.

Meanwhile, about 87,000,000 people have starved to death in socialist/communist countries since 1872 because of the lack of actual food.

While capitalism doesn't guarantee that everyone will be prosperous, it sure beats every other economic system in existence.

 

Sorry, but this is a cliche developed by erroneous use of the economic spectrum. There is no pure capitalism. There is only a spectrum from laissez faire to command economy. Laissez faire is neither desirable or achievable. Capitalism develops, and is protected, through government interventionism.

Neither is it pertinent to suggest a mix of socialism and capitalism. Worker ownership and control of the means of production is mutually exclusive from capitalism. Folk making that error are simply referring to the marginal improvements available through social or liberal democracy (e.g. public good provision).

 

That's what I was pointing out. All of the "isms" are just chalk board exercises - none have lived in the real world. Most of the Socialistic countries have devolved rather quickly into dictatorships. Given the amount of government control or influence on our economy via airports, seaports, electrical grids, water projects, the VA administration, research facilities (hell, our military is run more like a government corporation than anything else) claims of capitalisms are merely window dressing.

 

Norway is a capitalist country.

 

No surprise. They would be supporters of coops. I stand by what I said.

They will and they do to recreational visitors from every country.

 

Evidence is lacking in your reply. Your personal opinion doesn't count.

Then I'm sure you can provide real evidence so you don't have to ask me to accept your personal opinion as sufficient.

 

1 Socialism does't say everyone gets paid the same amount, everyone doing the same job gets the same amount.
2 Cubans live longer than Americans

 

And I don't agree. You use the term "pure" to suggest extreme outcome, but its just erroneous. This is about economic paradigm. Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive, by definition.

Socialistic is another nonsense term! Its meaningless. You get state capitalism deemed to be socialistic. You also get social democracy deemed to be socialistic. Both notions are drivel as neither involve worker control and ownership of the means of production.

Capitalism has been reliant on government control from day 1. For example, protectionism has been applied to allow infant industry growth. That merely confirms that laissez faire is typically pie in the sky. That isn't 'pure capitalism', it is just a term used to herd the gullible right.

 

Not quite. That would actually refer to perfect competitive labour markets. We don't know how much an individual will be compensated. Its determined by the firm and therefore worker democracy. Wage norms, as used in capitalism, are eliminated.