What are your political views?

[Lord Raven]

What are you mean? Socialism is theory how whole country and society should work. Or there is socialism or there is no socialism.

I'm not much into politics but that doesn't sound right

[Nicolas]

I'm not much into politics but that doesn't sound right

Socialism == government as Robin Hood

Can you be a bit Robin Hood? I think not.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Nicolas

[Lord Raven]

That comparison makes very little sense. Do you want to go into detail or are you going to continue making one sentence, simplistic arguments that basically say nothing? On top of that, you omit a load of details without expounding upon your points...

Edited November 11, 2014 by Lord Raven

[Nicolas]

That comparison makes very little sense. Do you want to go into detail or are you going to continue making one sentence, simplistic arguments that basically say nothing? On top of that, you omit a load of details without expounding upon your points...

I just don't understand how country can be a bit socialist. What that mean? Some branches of the economy are under control of government?

That comparison is the most telling comparison which I can imagine to describe socialism.

[Lord Raven]

In short, yes.

Second off, socialism isnt quite robin hood type stuff. It's significantly more nuanced, like all things. Don't try to make something like that into something simple.

[Nicolas]

In short, yes.

Second off, socialism isnt quite robin hood type stuff. It's significantly more nuanced, like all things. Don't try to make something like that into something simple.

In every country some branches of the economy are under control of government. Even in most liberal ones. Whole branch is controlled by one company (natural monopoly). Sewerage, energy infrastructure are examples.

There are many kind of socialism. So called "social justice" is part of every.

[Lord Raven]

I couldn't get a coherent point out of that post.

[Rapier]

he cites data from the website of a conservative thinktank to support his assertion that laissez-faire models correlate to high economic development, even though the data also support the assertion that welfare state models correlate to high economic development. the ranking orders countries by measurements of economic freedom, suggesting nothing about their degree of economic development - i'm not even sure how he came to his conclusion.

socialism works when taken in modest quantities; obviously it doesn't work when applied to everything.

It is irrelevant if the website I got the ranking from is conservative or liberal, the data is factual and you can find it anywhere else in 3 seconds of Google searching. All welfare state countries which are so famous around lefties are successful because they are economically solid enough to implant said welfare policies. Try implanting them in an under-development country, or a country with a low budget, without taxing the people to death. It won't work. As I said before, Norway is highly dependant on oil to maintain their costly policies, and Sweden is highly dependant on their high competitive economy. None of which would've been able to maintain their welfare policies if not for their economical solidity. Therefore, welfare policies are hardly practical in non-high developped countries, whereas laissez-faire policies are practical anywhere. It is true that welfare policies work, but as we can see from mostly free market based countries which are on top of welfare countries, laissez-faire works better (hi, US and Japan).

If there is no correlation between economical freedom and economical development, then how can you explain, for example, Hong Kong and Chile's economical ascension, knowing that they run on mostly free market economies? Also, laissez-faire models are the ones which naturally encourage opening the market and establishing economical freedom, so you can't naturally associate these two factors with welfare models.

Socialism does not work and never worked. Go read a History book before saying I am the uninformed one, please, and I sincerely hope you won't ever again commit the atrocious mistake of defending an ideology which has contributed to more deaths than fascism and nazism ever have, dooming its own people to poverty, persecution and misery. It failed in the URSS, it failed in China, it failed in North Korea, it failed in Cuba, it failed in Cambodja. How many examples do you need to notice that which is obvious? Social democracies only work because they take the middle term between capitalism and socialism, and they still need a solid country to be implanted upon - otherwise the budget is not enough for wellfare policies. The same can't be said about pure socialism, a prime example of totalitarism which is better left in the trash.

In short, yes.

Second off, socialism isnt quite robin hood type stuff. It's significantly more nuanced, like all things. Don't try to make something like that into something simple.

The logic is pretty much the same. Take from the rich, give to the poor, until there is equality between the social classes.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rapier

[Phoenix Wright]

All welfare state countries which are so famous around lefties are successful because they are economically solid enough to implant said welfare policies. Try implanting them in an under-development country, or a country with a low budget, without taxing the people to death. It won't work. As I said before, Norway is highly dependant on oil to maintain their costly policies, and Sweden is highly dependant on their high competitive economy. None of which would've been able to maintain their welfare policies if not for their economical solidity. Therefore, welfare policies are hardly practical in non-high developped countries, whereas laissez-faire policies are practical anywhere. It is true that welfare policies work, but as we can see from mostly free market based countries which are on top of welfare countries, laissez-faire works better (hi, US and Japan).

having a capitalist-based economy does not necessarily imply it follows a laissez-faire model. in fact, (though i know nothing about japan's economy i'd be willing to bet it's the same), one will find that nearly every facet of the american market is in some way inhibited by their respective local, state, or federal government--in the us we have a "mixed economy," which lies between capitalism and socialism. laissez-faire principles have been long forgotten.

Socialism does not work and never worked. Go read a History book before saying I am the uninformed one, please, and I sincerely hope you won't ever again commit the atrocious mistake of defending an ideology which has contributed to more deaths than fascism and nazism ever have, dooming its own people to poverty, persecution and misery. It failed in the URSS, it failed in China, it failed in North Korea, it failed in Cuba, it failed in Cambodja. How many examples do you need to notice that which is obvious? Social democracies only work because they take the middle term between capitalism and socialism, and they still need a solid country to be implanted upon - otherwise the budget is not enough for wellfare policies. The same can't be said about pure socialism, a prime example of totalitarism which is better left in the trash.

socialism and communism are not synonymous.

[Nicolas]

Communism is socialism.

[Excellen Browning]

Communism is a subset of socialism.

[dondon151]

What are you mean? Socialism is theory how whole country and society should work. Or there is socialism or there is no socialism.

the best example i can cite off the top of my head is china. china has numerous state-owned enterprises that engage in capitalist behavior. this fulfills requisites of both socialism and capitalism. another example would be any country that has a free-market economy but has socialized healthcare.

If there is no correlation between economical freedom and economical development, then how can you explain, for example, Hong Kong and Chile's economical ascension, knowing that they run on mostly free market economies? Also, laissez-faire models are the ones which naturally encourage opening the market and establishing economical freedom, so you can't naturally associate these two factors with welfare models.

if a handful of examples is proof for a general statement, then i will once more cite the example of china, which is a country that engages in state capitalism. i never once stated that there is no correlation between economic freedom and economic development - you misinterpreted my criticism of your tendency to draw spurious conclusions from data (not that it was unexpected; you seem keen to misinterpret others in the most negative possible light). the socialism "advocates" in this thread (me, phoenix wright, lord raven) are only stating that socialism works in small quantities when selectively applied to certain aspects of the economy.

Socialism does not work and never worked. Go read a History book before saying I am the uninformed one, please, and I sincerely hope you won't ever again commit the atrocious mistake of defending an ideology which has contributed to more deaths than fascism and nazism ever have, dooming its own people to poverty, persecution and misery. It failed in the URSS, it failed in China, it failed in North Korea, it failed in Cuba, it failed in Cambodja.

don't you dare try to lecture me on history when you can't even grasp the differences between communism and socialism. learn the meanings of words before you go off on a diatribe, thanks.

The logic is pretty much the same. Take from the rich, give to the poor, until there is equality between the social classes.

under this definition, taxation is socialist.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Red Fox of Fire

[Nobody]

I guess I'm a liberal that believe some of the socialist ideas can work and be good if done in a mild and correct way. So a social-liberal with much more focus on the liberal part of it. I'd say i'm a centrist.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Nobody

[Rapier]

I'll address both Nick and dondon here, whereas the rest of my post solely addresses dondon's arguments toward me.

Economic competitivity and freedom are associated with free market policies, which are associated with laissez-faire policies, and not welfare policies. If anything, welfare policies can be protectionist and generate distortions of the market which harm economic competitivity and freedom.

An example of this are regulatory agencies such as the FDA in the US. It had the pretension of regulating food with acceptable standards of quality in order to improve health in theory, but in practice it ended industrializing EVERYTHING and had an opposite effect in health. They also make it difficult for the smaller businessmen to join the market because regulatory agencies tend to impose standards which only the higher budget businessmen can meet (this is what I meant when I said that the government creates monopolies more easily than laissez-faire capitalism, Nick).

In theory, welfare policies want to increase economic competitivity and freedom through government regulations which make the market more just, but in practice they create distortions to the market which harm competitivity and freedom through excessive bureaucracy. The irony in Sweden is that its market policies became more modeled after laissez-faire capitalism than welfare state capitalism since they saw their budget was being spent in a fast rhythm, though the government still maintains their hand over the economy. Its market is more free from regulations than most other welfare state models.

--

the best example i can cite off the top of my head is china. china has numerous state-owned enterprises that engage in capitalist behavior. this fulfills requisites of both socialism and capitalism. another example would be any country that has a free-market economy but has socialized healthcare.

Thing is, it is impossible to completely separate yourself from capitalism (ie. the accumulation of capital) even in a socialist/communist country. Even Cuba has state capitalist tendencies, if their cigarettes market means something. North Korea is the only example which is too insane for me to even grasp, so let's just leave it under the table.

Note that this is not an objection to your point.

if a handful of examples is proof for a general statement, then i will once more cite the example of china, which is a country that engages in state capitalism. i never once stated that there is no correlation between economic freedom and economic development. the socialism "advocates" in this thread (me, phoenix wright, lord raven) are only stating that socialism works in small quantities when selectively applied to certain aspects of the economy.

Funny how you cite China's positive liberal policies to open its market in Zones of Open Commerce to engage in capital behavior, then say liberalism does not work. Can you maintain your coherency? And yes, liberalism is different from keynesian economics, though you can argue that "neoliberalism" (which is just a term, not an economical school of any sort) branches off liberalism, they are not inherently the same.

Do give examples about how socialism can be benefitial to a country's economy, if you will.

you're a fucking idiot. don't you dare try to lecture me on history when you can't even grasp the differences between communism and socialism. learn the meanings of words before you go off on a diatribe, thanks.

The only difference between communism and socialism, putting it simply, is that the former is the latter on its more radical state, much like libertarianism is to liberalism. They have the same policies and they drink from the same source (marxism), which is not to say that they're exactly the same, but that they have more similarities than differences. And guess what? Both advocate for the rise of a government who will overthrow the current polictical power and install the dictatorship of the proletariat. This principle was used in communist China, in the URSS and in Cuba for the revolution that ultimately screwed their countries. Therefore, I can criticize socialism in basis of the principles that it shares with communism, since these principles are one and the same.

under this definition, taxation is socialist.

You've got to be kidding me =_=. Did you even read the complement where I specifically said "take from the rich, give to the poor"? Normal taxation refers to both the rich, the middle incomes and the poor, therefore it is not inherently socialist, whereas policies that tax more of the rich for "social contribution" are socialist. Not only did you fail to analyze my "definition" (I did not define socialism under a simplistic term), you also misrepped it completely.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Rapier

[eclipse]

I'm only going to clip one part of that wall (because this isn't the mafia subforum, and you're not Eury). I'm glad you used a concrete example - that means that there's history behind it.

An example of this are regulatory agencies such as the FDA in the US. It had the pretension of regulating food with acceptable standards of quality in order to improve health in theory, but in practice it ended industrializing EVERYTHING and had an opposite effect in health. They also make it difficult for the smaller businessmen to join the market because regulatory agencies tend to impose standards which only the higher budget businessmen can meet (this is what I meant when I said that the government creates monopolies more easily than laissez-faire capitalism, Nick).

Do you have any idea what things were like before the FDA was put into place?

[Naughx]

I guess I'm a liberal that believe some of the socialist ideas can work and be good if done in a mild and correct way. So a social-liberal with much more focus on the liberal part of it. I'd say i'm a centrist.

^ Kind of this, moderate social-democracy; I'd say that I am a centrist on economical matters.

---

Do you have any idea what things were like before the FDA was put into place?

The american FDA and our "Health Canada" are quite corrupt. (But I guess it would be worse if these government agencies didn't exist)

Edited November 12, 2014 by Naughx

[Chiki]

Socialism does not work and never worked.

You're confusing socialism with communism (one can have a more loose definition of socialism that doesn't apply just to stuff like the Soviet Union). You could choose to define a socialist country as a welfare state. Some socialist states today are the most peaceful states with the highest quality of life, such as: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and so on. A much bigger success than the US at any rate.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Chiki

[Nobody]

You're confusing socialism with communism (one can have a more loose definition of socialism that doesn't apply just to stuff like the Soviet Union). Some socialist states today are the most peaceful states with the highest quality of life, such as: Denmark, Finland, Canada, Sweden and so on. A much bigger success than the US at any rate.

can you explain how those countries are socialist? From what I've seen, they're social democracies, which seem to be quite different.

Of course, I can be wrong.

oh also, the Scandinavian countries and Canada rank really high on economic liberty ranks, and many "pure" socialists are always saying free market is bad and that the State should regulate the economy in order to it "work for the people"

What I'm trying to say is that, while those countries definitely adopt many socialist policies, they're not socialist countries, specially when talking about their economies, considering they have some of the freest markets on the world, which is not something socialism supports.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Nobody

[Chiki]

From what I've seen, they're social democracies, which seem to be quite different.

Yes, they are social democracies, and they're not strict socialist countries. But you don't need to have such a narrow definition of socialism. It's evolved nowadays.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Chiki

[dondon151]

Do give examples about how socialism can be benefitial to a country's economy, if you will.

socialist countries invest more in public health, which leads to a healthier population, a healthier workforce, and greater productivity.

Funny how you cite China's positive liberal policies to open its market in Zones of Open Commerce to engage in capital behavior, then say liberalism does not work. Can you maintain your coherency? And yes, liberalism is different from keynesian economics, though you can argue that "neoliberalism" (which is just a term, not an economical school of any sort) branches off liberalism, they are not inherently the same.

what? i never said that liberalism doesn't work.

The only difference between communism and socialism, putting it simply, is that the former is the latter on its more radical state, much like libertarianism is to liberalism. They have the same policies and they drink from the same source (marxism), which is not to say that they're exactly the same, but that they have more similarities than differences. And guess what? Both advocate for the rise of a government who will overthrow the current polictical power and install the dictatorship of the proletariat. This principle was used in communist China, in the URSS and in Cuba for the revolution that ultimately screwed their countries. Therefore, I can criticize socialism in basis of the principles that it shares with communism, since these principles are one and the same.

the only difference between social darwinism and evolutionary biology, putting it simply, is that the former is the latter in its more radical state. therefore, i can criticize evolutionary biology on the basis of the principles that it shares with social darwinism, since these principles are one and the same.

the only difference between negative eugenics and contraception, putting it simply, is that the former is the latter in its more radical state. therefore, i can criticize contraception on the basis of the principles that it shares with negative eugenics, since these principles are one and the same.

the only difference between poisons and pharmaceuticals, putting it simply, is that the former is the latter in its more radical state. therefore, i can criticize pharmaceuticals on the basis of the properties that they share with poisons, since these properties are one and the same.

the above three statements demonstrate how fatuous your conclusion is. first of all, there is not an "only" difference - that is a qualifier intended to mislead. second of all, literally every thing or idea in existence that is effective when taken in moderation becomes harmful when taken in great amounts or to the extreme. you may not make a compelling argument by likening a concept to its most radical version and then discarding them based in its similarities. capitalism has much in common with fascism; that doesn't mean that capitalism is bad.

you have the tendency to make an assertion, and then use it to logically justify another assertion. please stop doing that.

You've got to be kidding me =_=. Did you even read the complement where I specifically said "take from the rich, give to the poor"? Normal taxation refers to both the rich, the middle incomes and the poor, therefore it is not inherently socialist, whereas policies that tax more of the rich for "social contribution" are socialist. Not only did you fail to analyze my "definition" (I did not define socialism under a simplistic term), you also misrepped it completely.

i honestly could not care less how you define socialism, because socialism has already been adequately defined by people more qualified than you. tax money is generally used to fund projects that disproportionately benefit the poor - things like public transportation, public recreation, and public education (hint: the word "public" gives it away) - and this isn't even considering welfare programs.

it's a shame that users can't be warned for egregious offenses like outright stupidity. i do so wish it were a bannable offense. keep in mind that you're arguing over something that is entirely fabricated in your own mind; namely, you're obsessed with pigeonholing socialism into a narrow economic system and then loudly disagreeing people who point out that this is not the case.

can you explain how those countries are socialist? From what I've seen, they're social democracies, which seem to be quite different.

Of course, I can be wrong.

wikipedia says:

"Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods."

"Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system. This may refer to extending principles of democracy in the economy (such as through cooperatives or workplace democracy), or may simply refer to trends of socialism that emphasise democratic principles as inalienable from their political project."

Edited November 12, 2014 by dondon151

[Nobody]

"Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods."

"Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system. This may refer to extending principles of democracy in the economy (such as through cooperatives or workplace democracy), or may simply refer to trends of socialism that emphasise democratic principles as inalienable from their political project."

there's a problem here. The scandinavian countries have extremely open market, which is definitely not a socialist economic system. Could you help me understand that contradiction?

That's something that's really hard for me to understand, how can a country with such a open market be considered socialist?

I think the problem we're having here is actually geographic. Both me and Rapier live in a latin american country where the rulling left winged party tries to paint open market as something completely anti-socialist and "against the people". That might be the reason we have such a problem thinking a country with open market is socialist. So the problem wouldn't be your reasoning, but the fact that the latin american left leads us to think what you're saying is socialism isn't socialism.

I mean, they call the "social democracy party" a right wing party here and demonize privatizations, which are really common in Scandinavia.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Nobody

[dondon151]

there's a problem here. The scandinavian countries have extremely open market, which is definitely not a socialist economic system. Could you help me understand that contradiction?

That's something that's really hard for me to understand, how can a country with such a open market be considered socialist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

[Nobody]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

then they aren't completely socialist, right?

because they sound somewhere between "social" and "liberal".

Sorry if I'm sounding dumb.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Nobody

[dondon151]

that's correct. usually i think we refer to them as "socialist" because they're a bit more socialist than the rest.

EDIT: by the way, "liberal" means a totally different thing in the US. a self-described liberal here is more likely to support socialist ideology.

Edited November 12, 2014 by dondon151

[Rehab]

there's a problem here. The scandinavian countries have extremely open market, which is definitely not a socialist economic system. Could you help me understand that contradiction?

That's something that's really hard for me to understand, how can a country with such a open market be considered socialist?

I think the problem we're having here is actually geographic. Both me and Rapier live in a latin american country where the rulling left winged party tries to paint open market as something completely anti-socialist and "against the people". That might be the reason we have such a problem thinking a country with open market is socialist. So the problem wouldn't be your reasoning, but the fact that the latin american left leads us to think what you're saying is socialism isn't socialism.

I mean, they call the "social democracy party" a right wing party here and demonize privatizations, which are really common in Scandinavia.

Not to presume true familiarity with your region/country/politics, but I've heard a faint little in passing about how Petrobras has been, uh, mismanaged. Sorry about that, man.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Rehab