Is it possible to have socialism without coercion by an authoritarian government? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15049363
B0ycey wrote:The invisible hand is merely a process. It explains why things progress and how supply is determined by demand. Ultimately it was the lack of freedom in enterprise that stagnated the SU and was why before it fell Gorbachev tried to implement Perestroika. I am not against Socialism as you know. However I don't pretend it doesn't have fundamental flaws and stagnation is one of them.


We can go over a lot of things about the history of socialism. In the end though? It is really about values again. What is capitalism but its root? Capital. Capital emphasizes human beings? As the source of wealth? Not really. It is about capital. Property, owners and non owners, negotiations between workers for wages. What Nick was talking about is real. It is not some fiction about why extremely wealthy people gained even more wealth under neo-liberalism. If people believe selfishness is what creates wealth? You got the problems we got now. A total problem with income inequality.

What needs to happen is a total empowerment of the workers. They own their own labor. It is sort of happening with technology currently. Many people prefer doing their own thing rather than working for others who pay them abysmal wages. But instead of pockets of that ownership of your own labor and efforts that are isolated? You do it in big groups. You free up all that value. And you also have the freedom of democratic forms of growth within employment or work. It is a great remedy and a great progressive step forward. Mondragon that Richard Wolff toured in the Basque region of Andorra? Northern Spain? Is a good example. If you have that kind of model in thousands or millions of productive industry you transform the entire economy and the wealth grows extremely well and more than that it stabilizes employment. A big problem with those who are laid off and are without means to pay their bills once their unemployment insurance runs out.

Top down exclusivity that only favors one or two egomaniacs is not the future of employment B0ycey.

There are areas that the market doesn't do well. Those need to be run strictly by a socialist model or there is dysfunction. Health care is one of them. So is publicly funded education.

Other things that are small and great things to have in a market model are little restaurants. Like they have all over Mexico. Small, family run mom and pops that are not chains. Just local little spots that people love to patronize. Bolivians don't like McDonald's because they love doing business with micro businesses who sell traditional Andean specialties and are affordable to boot. Serve locally grown products and so on....

Many things can be sifted through to fit the needs of particular societies and their stages of development and investment. But the neoliberal nightmare of greed has to go. Forever.
Last edited by Tainari88 on 18 Nov 2019 21:09, edited 1 time in total.
#15049365
Julian658 wrote:Do you know of a nation that has done this? Other than tiny groups of people. When it comes to small groups it is easy to be a socialist.


It is mentioned in the linked article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra ... ementation

    Although socialism is commonly conflated with Marxism–Leninism and its various variants such as Stalinism and Maoism, there have also been several anarchist and socialist societies that followed democratic socialist principles, encompassing anti-authoritarian, democratic anti-capitalism. The most notable examples are the Paris Commune, the various soviet republics in the post-World War I period and the early Soviet Russia before the abolition of soviets, Revolutionary Catalonia as noted by George Orwell and more recently Rojava. Other examples include the kibbutz in modern-day Israel, Marinaleda in Spain, the Zapatistas in Chiapas, and to some extent Chile under President Salvador Allende, as well as the workers' self-management within Yugoslavia and modern Cuba.

    When nationalisation of large industries was relatively widespread during the post-war consensus, it was not uncommon for commentators to describe some European countries as democratic socialist states seeking to move their countries toward a socialist economy. In 1956, leading British Labour Party politician and author Anthony Crosland claimed that capitalism had been abolished in Britain, although others such as Welshman Aneurin Bevan, Minister of Health in the first post-war Labour government, disputed the claim that Britain was a socialist state.[111][112] For Crosland and others who supported his views, Britain was a socialist state. According to Bevan, Britain had a socialist National Health Service which stood in opposition to the hedonism of Britain's capitalist society, arguing:

      The National Health service and the Welfare State have come to be used as interchangeable terms, and in the mouths of some people as terms of reproach. Why this is so it is not difficult to understand, if you view everything from the angle of a strictly individualistic competitive society. A free health service is pure Socialism and as such it is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society.[37]

    When the French Socialist Party was in power in the post-war period, some commentators claimed that France was a socialist country, although as in the rest of Europe the laws of capitalism still operated fully and private enterprises dominated the economy. In the 1980s, the François Mitterrand government aimed to expand dirigism and scheduled to nationalise all banks, but this attempt faced opposition of the European Economic Community. The same is now applied to Nordic countries with the Nordic model. Nevertheless, public ownership in France and the United Kingdom during the height of nationalisation in the 1960s and 1970s never accounted for more than 15–20% of capital formation.[113]

    The socialism practised by parties such as the Singaporean People's Action Party during its first few decades in power was of a pragmatic kind as characterised by its rejection of nationalisation. Despite this, the party still claimed to be a socialist party, pointing out its regulation of the private sector, activist intervention in the economy and social policies as evidence of this.[114] Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew stated that he has been influenced by the democratic socialist British Labour Party.[115]

    These confusions are caused not only by the socialist definition, but by the capitalist definition as well. While Christian democrats, social liberals and certain national and social conservatives tend to support social democratic policies and generally see capitalism compatible with a mixed economy, classical liberals, conservative liberals, neoliberals, liberal conservatives and right-libertarians define capitalism as the free market, supporting a small government, laissez-faire capitalism and a market economy, opposing social democratic policies as well as government regulation and economic interventionism, seeing actually existing capitalism as corporatism, corporatocracy, or crony capitalism.[116][117][118][119]

    Socialism has often been erroneously conflated with an administrative command economy, authoritarian socialism, big government, Marxist–Leninist states, Soviet-type economic planning, state interventionism and state socialism. Austrian School economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises continually used the word socialism as a synonym for central planning and state socialism, falsely conflating it with fascism and opposing social democratic policies and the welfare state.[120][121][122] This is especially true in the United States, where socialism has become a pejorative used by conservatives and libertarians to taint liberal and progressive policies, proposals and public figures.[123]

Are you aware of the many capitalist dictatorships?
#15049368
Julian658 wrote:Sure, there is no free lunch. The nature of the beast is that one must swim to keep the head about water and avoid drowning. What is the alternative? Have someone else do this for you?


You do realise Socialism is different to benefits right? Socialism is merely an economic model. Rather than feeding the bourgeoisie with surplus labor, the surplus labor goes to the state and is shared to the populous as a whole - not the 1%

Benefits are really there to stop the proletariat realising their class distinction and looting the bourgeoisie for their surplus labor as it sustains a minimum living standard. Give the poor nothing and I assure you they will rise up.

I say give cheap homes to anyone that is willing to work. I agree!


Just to inform you that Socialism requires labor the same as Capitalism does.

"He who do not work, neither shall he eat"

The only difference to the proletariat in Capitalism and Socialism is that in Capitalism profits drives up price and as a result living costs and that surplus labor goes to the bourgeoisie and not the state. Apart from that there isn't much different in terms of output in either system.
#15049399
B0ycey wrote:You do realise Socialism is different to benefits right? Socialism is merely an economic model. Rather than feeding the bourgeoisie with surplus labor, the surplus labor goes to the state and is shared to the populous as a whole - not the 1%

I don't disagree with the above. I also see the point of the employer making a profit off the employee.

The issue of sharing profit works nicely in small groups of people that have a common goal or kinship.

The problem socialism at a large scale is that it requires significant coercion by the state to organize and to implement. I admit capitalism is also coercive since one must work diligently to survive and on top of that taxes to the state are mandatory.

It would be wonderful if we could all get up every morning knowing that the state will always provide a roof over our heads and bread. Do you realize this is what happens to wild animals in the zoo? They do not have a need to hunt for food but in return they lose their freedom. Some may say freedom is not having to worry to make since the state provides, but this is not desirable for all (at least not for me). I want a life with meaning where I create my own destiny.

BTW, what will the state do if a citizen decides to be a capitalist?

Benefits are really there to stop the proletariat realising their class distinction and looting the bourgeoisie for their surplus labor as it sustains a minimum living standard. Give the poor nothing and I assure you they will rise up.


I agree, once again. Capitalists know they must dress up the system with social programs to avoid a revolution. No one wants a revolution, trust me on this one.

Capitalism does not change the natural alignment of talent and competency among humans. If anything capitalism creates a sharp distinction between the talented and the non-talented by creating a gigantic wealth gap. Socialism cannot create equality among humans because humans are not equal.

Just to inform you that Socialism requires labor the same as Capitalism does.

"He who do not work, neither shall he eat"


That I like! I believe under socialism there would be no homelessness. But, something else bothers me a great deal. When Germany was divided the East German engineers designed the Travant which has been described as the worst automobile in world history. Meanwhile the West German engineers were designing state of the art automobiles such as the BMW, et al. Obviously at that time there was no difference in intellect between an East and a West Germans and yet the East Germany engineers could not complete with their counterparts in the West. Do you think a system with no incentive destroys creativity? No economic system produces as much wealth as capitalism.

The only difference to the proletariat in Capitalism and Socialism is that in Capitalism profits drives up price and as a result living costs and that surplus labor goes to the bourgeoisie and not the state. Apart from that there isn't much different in terms of output in either system.


There is no point for a business in hiring a worker if the owner cannot use the wealth created by the worker. If the worker keeps all the surplus value the company has ZERO profits. I can see why there would not be an incentive to be creative or to have a business.
#15049402
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is mentioned in the linked article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra ... ementation

    Although socialism is commonly conflated with Marxism–Leninism and its various variants such as Stalinism and Maoism, there have also been several anarchist and socialist societies that followed democratic socialist principles, encompassing anti-authoritarian, democratic anti-capitalism. The most notable examples are the Paris Commune, the various soviet republics in the post-World War I period and the early Soviet Russia before the abolition of soviets, Revolutionary Catalonia as noted by George Orwell and more recently Rojava. Other examples include the kibbutz in modern-day Israel, Marinaleda in Spain, the Zapatistas in Chiapas, and to some extent Chile under President Salvador Allende, as well as the workers' self-management within Yugoslavia and modern Cuba.

    When nationalisation of large industries was relatively widespread during the post-war consensus, it was not uncommon for commentators to describe some European countries as democratic socialist states seeking to move their countries toward a socialist economy. In 1956, leading British Labour Party politician and author Anthony Crosland claimed that capitalism had been abolished in Britain, although others such as Welshman Aneurin Bevan, Minister of Health in the first post-war Labour government, disputed the claim that Britain was a socialist state.[111][112] For Crosland and others who supported his views, Britain was a socialist state. According to Bevan, Britain had a socialist National Health Service which stood in opposition to the hedonism of Britain's capitalist society, arguing:

      The National Health service and the Welfare State have come to be used as interchangeable terms, and in the mouths of some people as terms of reproach. Why this is so it is not difficult to understand, if you view everything from the angle of a strictly individualistic competitive society. A free health service is pure Socialism and as such it is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society.[37]

    When the French Socialist Party was in power in the post-war period, some commentators claimed that France was a socialist country, although as in the rest of Europe the laws of capitalism still operated fully and private enterprises dominated the economy. In the 1980s, the François Mitterrand government aimed to expand dirigism and scheduled to nationalise all banks, but this attempt faced opposition of the European Economic Community. The same is now applied to Nordic countries with the Nordic model. Nevertheless, public ownership in France and the United Kingdom during the height of nationalisation in the 1960s and 1970s never accounted for more than 15–20% of capital formation.[113]

    The socialism practised by parties such as the Singaporean People's Action Party during its first few decades in power was of a pragmatic kind as characterised by its rejection of nationalisation. Despite this, the party still claimed to be a socialist party, pointing out its regulation of the private sector, activist intervention in the economy and social policies as evidence of this.[114] Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew stated that he has been influenced by the democratic socialist British Labour Party.[115]

    These confusions are caused not only by the socialist definition, but by the capitalist definition as well. While Christian democrats, social liberals and certain national and social conservatives tend to support social democratic policies and generally see capitalism compatible with a mixed economy, classical liberals, conservative liberals, neoliberals, liberal conservatives and right-libertarians define capitalism as the free market, supporting a small government, laissez-faire capitalism and a market economy, opposing social democratic policies as well as government regulation and economic interventionism, seeing actually existing capitalism as corporatism, corporatocracy, or crony capitalism.[116][117][118][119]

    Socialism has often been erroneously conflated with an administrative command economy, authoritarian socialism, big government, Marxist–Leninist states, Soviet-type economic planning, state interventionism and state socialism. Austrian School economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises continually used the word socialism as a synonym for central planning and state socialism, falsely conflating it with fascism and opposing social democratic policies and the welfare state.[120][121][122] This is especially true in the United States, where socialism has become a pejorative used by conservatives and libertarians to taint liberal and progressive policies, proposals and public figures.[123]

Are you aware of the many capitalist dictatorships?


POD:

Thank you for the info. This is the best post I ever read from you. I do not disagree that socialism will work in small groups if EVERYBODY wants to be a socialist. However, you fail to understand the human condition. Many need to be motivated to create wealth and once the motivation is gone we end up with East Germans making the Travant and West Germans making the BMW.

During the height of the Soviet Union a poor American had more than a middle class Russian. I do not disagree with the idea of creating an Utopia, but this is not how it is done. There is nothing like a grocery store in a capitalist country. The abundance is simply overwhelming compared to a socialist state. The most you should ever hope for is a mixed economy and allow capitalism to naturally culminate in socialism. Yes, the end result of capitalism is socialism, but THIS IS NOT THE TIME. There is a need for greater technological achievement as well as much more wealth creation. Society needs to reach a state of redundant wealth. Otherwise, the socialist will use up all the wealth and everybody will be poor.
#15049406
Julian658 wrote:.....
The problem socialism at a large scale is that it requires significant coercion by the state to organize and to implement. I admit capitalism is also coercive since one must work diligently to survive and on top of that taxes to the state are mandatory.


No. You have already responded to evidence that socialism can coexist with democracy.

It requires no more coercion than capitalism.

BTW, what will the state do if a citizen decides to be a capitalist?


What happens now when someone decides to not be capitalist?

They usually go to jail, or get shot.

Capitalism does not change the natural alignment of talent and competency among humans. If anything capitalism creates a sharp distinction between the talented and the non-talented by creating a gigantic wealth gap.


Not really. An untalented person who inherits a business that hires talented people is still wealthier than people who have actual talent.

Socialism cannot create equality among humans because humans are not equal.


Socialism is not about making everyone the same.

That I like! I believe under socialism there would be no homelessness. But, something else bothers me a great deal. When Germany was divided the East German engineers designed the Travant which has been described as the worst automobile in world history. Meanwhile the West German engineers were designing state of the art automobiles such as the BMW, et al. Obviously at that time there was no difference in intellect between an East and a West Germans and yet the East Germany engineers could not complete with their counterparts in the West. Do you think a system with no incentive destroys creativity? No economic system produces as much wealth as capitalism.


You are assuming that the ability to provide luxury cars is a good sign of wealth. These same capitalist countries also had people dying of hunger and treatable diseases.

There is no point for a business in hiring a worker if the owner cannot use the wealth created by the worker. If the worker keeps all the surplus value the company has ZERO profits. I can see why there would not be an incentive to be creative or to have a business.


People will do things that need to be done, instead of doing what the owner thinks they can make money off of.

Julian658 wrote: I do not disagree that socialism will work in small groups if EVERYBODY wants to be a socialist.


Go back and reread the list of countries where democratic socialism has worked, and then you will see how this sentence is wrong.

During the height of the Soviet Union a poor American had more than a middle class Russian.


Provide evidence for this claim.

I do not disagree with the idea of creating an Utopia, but this is not how it is done. There is nothing like a grocery store in a capitalist country. The abundance is simply overwhelming compared to a socialist state.


Provide evidence for this claim.

The most you should ever hope for is a mixed economy and allow capitalism to naturally culminate in socialism. Yes, the end result of capitalism is socialism, but THIS IS NOT THE TIME. There is a need for greater technological achievement as well as much more wealth creation. Society needs to reach a state of redundant wealth. Otherwise, the socialist will use up all the wealth and everybody will be poor.


This seems like a baseless prediction by someone who knows next to nothing about socialism.
#15049410
Julian658 wrote:making the Trabant

Trabants were great cars. The Trabant was fuel efficient, easy to repair, and easy to drive. It is one of the first major cars to be produced out of industrial recycled material. When the first Trabants were manufactured in 1957, its design was one of the most modern in the whole world for the late 1950's. The general Trabant design and engineering mechanisms lasted until the early 1990's - Its long lasting design is a characteristic of modernity. It is easy and fun to drive.

There were only two problems with the Trabants - Its transmission was eccentric, Gasoline and Oil were mixed in together in the fuel tank in the front, where the hood must be opened to refuel.

The transmission had more of a difficult way to start up the car compared to other major produced cars like the Volkswagen Käfer, Volkswagen Typ 3 (Its design looked similar to early Trabants, yet the Typ 3 was first produced four years after the Trabant, in 1961), Fiat 500, or Morris Minor. The way to shift most Trabants were more complex and often stalled more.

When refueling, unless one had proper measurement tools to measure liquids, it was not easy to know the ratio of gasoline and oil to mix in when refueling. For some people, it was complicated and risky, since not having a proper ratio (too little oil, or too much oil mixed with gasoline) could damage the engine.
making the BMW

BMW automobiles that were mass produced were not that more advanced than Trabants in the late 1950's and 1960's. The Isetta 300, and 600 models were less advanced than Trabants. The 700 in terms of quality is the same as Trabants. The 1500, 1600, 1800, and 2000 models were only larger and had slightly more comfortable seats than Trabants of the 1960's and 1970's. Many mass produced BMW's, Volkswagens, and Mercedes Benz's were used in the DDR, Poland, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia.
Last edited by SSDR on 19 Nov 2019 00:54, edited 1 time in total.
#15049417
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. You have already responded to evidence that socialism can coexist with democracy.

It requires no more coercion than capitalism.



Tovarish POD: You and your comrades are free to create a commune and a COOP where all workers are owners. That is 100% doable here in America and canada. List of communes in USA. Most are now closed.

What happens now when someone decides to not be capitalist?


Nothing, most American are not capitalists. Bernie Sanders could win the presidency and he is a socialist. I wonder if a capitalist could run for the presidency in a Socialist state. I DON'T THINK SO! :knife: :knife:

They usually go to jail, or get shot.


POD: That was poor, almost childish.

Not really. An untalented person who inherits a business that hires talented people is still wealthier than people who have actual talent.


In free democracies parents are allowed to pass wealth to the children. How about that? What is wrong with that?

Socialism is not about making everyone the same.


MOA tried. He even dressed men and women the same way.


You are assuming that the ability to provide luxury cars is a good sign of wealth. These same capitalist countries also had people dying of hunger and treatable diseases.


People die POD, but they die more often in socialist nations. And luxury items is simply a sign of greater wealth.

People will do things that need to be done, instead of doing what the owner thinks they can make money off of.

A ship with no captain sometimes sink. Apple and Microsoft needed a leader with vision and talent.

Go back and reread the list of countries where democratic socialism has worked, and then you will see how this sentence is wrong.


These countries only work for a short time POD. Once all wealth is used up then what?
#15049418
SSDR wrote:Trabants were great cars. The Trabant was fuel efficient, easy to repair, and easy to drive. It is one of the first major cars to be produced out of industrial recycled material. When the first Trabants were manufactured in 1957, its design was one of the most modern in the whole world for the late 1950's. The general Trabant design and engineering mechanisms lasted until the early 1990's - Its long lasting design is a characteristic of modernity. It is easy and fun to drive.

There were only two problems with the Trabants - Its transmission was eccentric, Gasoline and Oil were mixed in together in the fuel tank in the front, where the hood must be opened to refuel.

The transmission had more of a difficult way to start up the car compared to other major produced cars like the Volkswagen Käfer, Volkswagen Typ 3 (Its design looked similar to early Trabants, yet the Typ 3 was first produced four years after the Trabant, in 1961), Fiat 500, or Morris Minor. The way to shift most Trabants were more complex and often stalled more.

When refueling, unless one had proper measurement tools to measure liquids, it was not easy to know the ratio of gasoline and oil to mix in when refueling. For some people, it was complicated and risky, since not having a proper ratio (too little oil, or too much oil mixed with gasoline) could damage the engine.


I am sure Jay Leno has one in his collections. They are eccentric, but no match to Western cars.
#15049420
Julian658 wrote:They are eccentric, but no match to Western cars.

The Isetta 300 and 600's were less advanced, and more "eccentric" than Trabants. The Käfer, Typ 3, and BMW 700's were almost the same in terms of quality to the Trabants.

The Trabant is better than the Fiat 500, Fiat 600, and in some ways, better than the Citroën 2CV.
He even dressed men and women the same way.

Patriarchal caricature of feminism.
#15049425
Image
This is a 1965 global map of the average wealth consumption per average person in each nation.

Besides the States, Canada, Britain, and Switzerland, most pro capitalist nations were just as wealthy as pro socialist nations. Some pro capitalist nations were more poor than pro socialist nations.

Spain - at the time, it is ruled by ultraconservative Francisco Franco, was more poor than over half of the socialist nations in Eastern Europe. Spain was more poor than Titoist Yugoslavia. Yet, Francoist Spain was one of the most anti socialist nations in the world at the time. Greece, another anti socialist country that is very pro American, was one of the most poorest nations in all of Europe in the 1960's. Ireland's average wealth was approximately the same as some socialist nations in Eastern Europe.

Pro capitalist countries in Latin America, like Chile, Mexico, or Peru, were on average, more poor than the Warsaw Pact. Most nations in Africa, many of where anti socialist and pro capitalist, were some of the poorest nations in the world. Islamic nations like Indonesia, or the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, were more poor than the Warsaw Pact.

Japan had around the same amount of wealth per person on average as the Soviet Union. Japan traded a lot with the Warsaw Pact, Yugoslavia, and socialist East Asia. Cars, technological appliances, and industrial supplies were traded between the nations.
#15049440
Julian658 wrote:Tovarish POD: You and your comrades are free to create a commune and a COOP where all workers are owners. That is 100% doable here in America and canada. List of communes in USA. Most are now closed.


Individual change is fine and all, but systemic change is required.

Back to the original point:
Socialism and democracy can coexist. It is no more coercive than capitalism.

Nothing, most American are not capitalists. Bernie Sanders could win the presidency and he is a socialist. I wonder if a capitalist could run for the presidency in a Socialist state. I DON'T THINK SO! :knife: :knife:


No. Sanders is not a socialist. He is a left-leaning liberal. You are a right leaning liberal.

Now, if an indigenous person tried to go and hunt buffalo, cut down some trees, and build a tipi in the wild, they would be arrested and jailed for breaking several laws of the capitalist system.

The Black Panthers, another socialist group, was routinely harassed by the police.

And then there was also all that violence against trade unions by the police and corporations.

And the use of the National Guard against people who protest pipelines.

Et cetera.

In free democracies parents are allowed to pass wealth to the children. How about that? What is wrong with that?


I never said there was anything wrong with it, though there is.

I said that it created a situation where the untalented made money off the talented.

MOA tried. He even dressed men and women the same way.


Do you mean Mao?

Can you provide some sort of evidence that he tried to make everyone exactly equal?

People die POD, but they die more often in socialist nations. And luxury items is simply a sign of greater wealth.


No. More people die in the US than in Cuba.

Luxury items that coexist with rampant poverty are not a sign of wealth. They are a sign of inequality. I bet there are Somali warlords with nice cars. Does that mean Somalia is a wealthy country? No. It means that the Somali system has allowed at least one person to amass money at the expense of others.

A ship with no captain sometimes sink. Apple and Microsoft needed a leader with vision and talent.


And yet the USSR put the first person into space, Cuba helps the US out with medical breakthroughs, and China is defeating the US in the economic race.

These countries only work for a short time POD. Once all wealth is used up then what?


They make more wealth.

Also, you are asking the wrong question when it comes to how long these last.
#15049461
Rugoz wrote:Ultimately the USSR just couldn't keep up. It was rich in resources but had a mediocre economy at best.

The Soviet Union had a progressive growth rate in terms of industrial and agricultural development and expansion just like many other nations.

The Soviet Union had lots of productive mismanagement, that was caused by the corruption of the non socialists that lead the Soviet Union.
#15049463
SSDR wrote:Image
This is a 1965 global map of the average wealth consumption per average person in each nation.

Besides the States, Canada, Britain, and Switzerland, most pro capitalist nations were just as wealthy as pro socialist nations. Some pro capitalist nations were more poor than pro socialist nations.

Spain - at the time, it is ruled by ultraconservative Francisco Franco, was more poor than over half of the socialist nations in Eastern Europe. Spain was more poor than Titoist Yugoslavia. Yet, Francoist Spain was one of the most anti socialist nations in the world at the time. Greece, another anti socialist country that is very pro American, was one of the most poorest nations in all of Europe in the 1960's. Ireland's average wealth was approximately the same as some socialist nations in Eastern Europe.

Pro capitalist countries in Latin America, like Chile, Mexico, or Peru, were on average, more poor than the Warsaw Pact. Most nations in Africa, many of where anti socialist and pro capitalist, were some of the poorest nations in the world. Islamic nations like Indonesia, or the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, were more poor than the Warsaw Pact.

Japan had around the same amount of wealth per person on average as the Soviet Union. Japan traded a lot with the Warsaw Pact, Yugoslavia, and socialist East Asia. Cars, technological appliances, and industrial supplies were traded between the nations.


Some of the points you make are incendiary and some may even call them racist. Capitalism requires dedication, intelligence, creativity, and a lot of hard work. Not all countries are capable of doing that since they are entrenched in Third World mentality.

Haiti can be capitalist all day long and it will remain a Third World country. Besides creativity capitalism requires rule of law, freedom, and a government that protects Patents and contracts.

On the other hand a country with talented creative people can be rather mediocre using a Socialist model.
#15049534
Julian658 wrote:BTW, what will the state do if a citizen decides to be a capitalist?


I have already told you the solution to your OP was a hybrid economy. If you want to look at the problems of pure Socialism, you need to look at the SU. It was so powerful that it should not have failed. And yet it did. In contrast look at China a hybrid socialist society. Since it opened up its market and allowed private enterprise it is rapidly becoming the superpower of the world and in my lifetime will achieve that I am sure. Adams was correct in everything he wrote. Whilst the SU stagnated the invisible hand created improvisions for Western society. However I am not asking for Social reform in enterprise but in vital services such as education, transport, housing and health. And a nationalising these drives down cost for those things as profits no longer become a factor within them.

No economic system produces as much wealth as capitalism.


Capitalism doesn't create new wealth. It creates debt. Money is nothing more an an IOU and is a concept of passing burden. And when the contradictions of capitalism catches up with it, the system will fail.


There is no point for a business in hiring a worker if the owner cannot use the wealth created by the worker. If the worker keeps all the surplus value the company has ZERO profits. I can see why there would not be an incentive to be creative or to have a business.


Profits are only a factor in Capitalism. Have a new economic model and profits are not a factor and this point is moot.

Does the Beaver not build the dam if he doesn't have a surplus of sticks at the end of it?
#15049551
Finfinder wrote:
Socialism is code for the Democrats have lost working class, it's just a word used to cover lies to ensnare the brain dead voter.



You keep telling yourself that, while you keep losing elections.

Btw, the irony was a delicious treat.

Somehow I doubt that is a requirement when Nunes […]

"I'm just a simple misanthrope who thinks peo[…]

The Irishman...

How about we both agree that this has nothing to […]

Satire 2018

https://www.americanthinker.com/image[…]