Has socialism ever worked?

Has socialism ever worked?

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2016/03/24/world/americas/obamaurges-raised-voices-incubas-husheddiscussions-ofrace.html
washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/12/05/fidel-castro-and-communisms-flawed-record-with-black-people/
nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/for-blacks-in-cuba-the-revolution-hasnt-begun.html
america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/13/amid-sweeping-changes-in-us-relations-cubas-race-problem-persists.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Social democracies do work, like Scandinavian countries. Just don't include Sweden.

It only works when your country can tax heavily on exports.

Didn't Sweden have a ton of anti-social people (before Germany fucked up Europe again)?

I suppose it would work perfectly fine if the country is small yet rich.

yes, but not for long
that is why so many people like Tito

No

It's fucking stupid

At least give a proper definition of socialism, as in a centrally planned economy in which ownership and control of the economy is in the hands of the state.

Any thing a government does =/= socialism
Welfare =/= socialism
Social services =/= socialism
Infrastructure =/= socialism
High taxes =/= socialism

That being said, no, socialism has not worked, nor will it. The main reason is pic related, and because no central authority has enough information or knowledge to coordinate the use of resources to the most valued use.

Yes; in places such as Norway where 90% of the people share the same ethnicity, language, and religion. They operate as one tribe - and theft inside the tribe is not tolerated.

Doesn't hurt to have a huge oilfield off your coast producing huge budget surpluses even after you coddle your entire population.

>yes but no

Norway begs to differ.

While our system is not perfect, it works for us.

However what works for us will not necessarily work for others i.e USA.

Just like what works for USA won't work for other countries.

Cultural, environmental and ideological differences play too big of a role in each and every country to find one system that will universally work for vast amounts of people.

Basically every developed/non-shithole country on the planet has, at the very least, some socialist characteristics.

Not in modern societies, but its basically how things work in hunter/gatherer tribes.

That being said, I am pretty certain that the USA has a big enough budget already, and could restructure and regulate enough to heavily subsidize a lot of things like healthcare and education to make it affordable to the low and middle classes, rendering the current idea of health insurance obsolete.

which is really what norway is doing, like how you go to the doctor, you still have to pay but it's not 50,000 dollarinos, rather it's more like 30-40 bucks out of your pocket and the state covers everything else.

I'm sure there are smarter people than myself that can work out all the quirks, but I am certain it could be done even in a country like USA, it just has to be restructured completely.

Socially funded vehicles.

Oh goys, a boid!

Addendum to this:

And there is something of a loose correlation to the level of development (i.e., shittiness) of a country and its level of involvement in the economy. So it can be reasonably inferred that, at least on a limited/partial basis, the implementation of certain socialist policies is generally beneficial.

Only in cultural and racially homogenous societies. Even the Cubans found that you can't uplift blacks to a civilized level and they just live off of gibs.

>nytimes.com/2016/03/24/world/americas/obamaurges-raised-voices-incubas-husheddiscussions-ofrace.html

>washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/12/05/fidel-castro-and-communisms-flawed-record-with-black-people/

>nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/for-blacks-in-cuba-the-revolution-hasnt-begun.html

>america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/13/amid-sweeping-changes-in-us-relations-cubas-race-problem-persists.html

>Has socialism ever worked?

public schools, emergency services, law enforcement, roads, social security and healthcare for the elderly, libraries, parks, unemployment insurance and food support for the poor...

Yep socialism works. Socialism is why America isn't a total shit hole to live in.

Now tell my why you want to live in a shit hole.

Just don't include imigrants*

>rather it's more like 30-40 bucks out of your pocket and the state covers everything else

It is exactly the same for the US except it's private health insurance instead of state. And that's bad insurance. Actually no, doctor visits are 10-15, only specialists are 30-40.

Why in the world would I want this?

The top immigrant to Sweden are Finns.

For the communist Intelligentsia it always does

for the rest of society, it doesn't

The problem was not that particular planners made particular mistakes in the Soviet Union or in other planned economies. Whatever the mistakes made by central planners, there are mistakes made in all kinds of economic systems— capitalist, socialist, or whatever. The more fundamental problem with central planning has been that the task taken on has repeatedly proven to be too much for human beings, in whatever country that task has been taken on. As Soviet economists Shmelev and Popov put it:

>No matter how much we wish to organize everything rationally, without waste, no matter how passionately we wish to lay all the bricks of the economic structure tightly, with no chinks in the mortar, it is not yet within our power.

This lesson proved hard for many others who lived in a centrally planned economy to accept. Mikhail Gorbachev was not the only leader raised in the Soviet Union who found the market’s operations and results in the West baffling. During the last years of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin, later destined to become Russia’s first post-Communist leader, was equally struck by what he saw in a capitalist economy:

>A turning point in Yeltsin’s intellectual development occurred during his first visit to the United States in September 1989, more specifically his first visit to an American supermarket, in Houston, Texas. The sight of aisle after aisle of shelves neatly stacked with every conceivable type of foodstuff and household item, each in a dozen varieties, both amazed and depressed him.

>For Yeltsin, like many other first-time Russian visitors to America, this was infinitely more impressive than tourist attractions like the Statue of Liberty and the Lincoln Memorial. It was impressive precisely because of its ordinariness. A cornucopia of consumer goods beyond the imagination of most Soviets was within the reach of ordinary citizens without standing in line for hours. And it was all so attractively displayed. For someone brought up in the drab conditions of communism, even a member of the relatively privileged elite, a visit to a Western supermarket involved a full-scale assault on the senses.

When he returned to Moscow, Yeltsin spoke of the pain he felt after seeing in Houston the contrast between American and Soviet living standards. He described what he had seen in America to what was described as “a stunned Moscow audience.” Yeltsin’s aide said that the Houston supermarket experience destroyed the last vestiges of Yeltsin’s belief in the Communist system, setting the stage for his becoming the first leader of post-Communist Russia.

Venezuela tried to go full socialism and now its a no go zone

Europe has most of the countries that apply socialism on certain elements and it werks, well it works util all goes down then they have to cut down.

Depends on what you mean by socialism and what you mean by works.

It works if you put a heavy tax on everything, and expect everyone to pay taxes even big corporations. But do you really think it's gonna happen?

Social democracy isn't fascism; hence DEMOCRACY...

See, Hitler was DEMOCRATICALLY elected; then gave himself more and more power whilst literally KILLING his opponents... so Hitler WASN'T DEMOCRATIC.

Social democracy can't do that and still call it's self democracy.

Socialists aim for a increased level of democracy. Direct democracy is what's needed.

Representative democracy is no longer working... it needs to be made SOCIAL (ie. for everyone).

No.

Of course

When many African colonies achieved national independence in the 1960s, a famous bet was made between the president of Ghana and the president of the neighboring Ivory Coast as to which country would be more prosperous in the years ahead. At that time, Ghana was not only more prosperous than the Ivory Coast, it had more natural resources, so the bet might have seemed reckless on the part of the president of the Ivory Coast. However, he knew that Ghana was committed to a government-run economy and the Ivory Coast to a freer market. By 1982, the Ivory Coast had so surpassed Ghana economically that the poorest 20 percent of its people had a higher real income per capita than most of the people in Ghana.

This could not be attributed to any superiority of the country or its people. In fact, in later years, when a new generation of Ivory Coast politicians eventually succumbed to the temptation to have the government control more of their country’s economy, while Ghana finally learned from its mistakes and began to loosen government controls, these two countries’ roles reversed— and now Ghana’s economy began to grow, while that of the Ivory Coast declined.

Rojava

Social democracy has a very economic corporatist model akin to fascism

>Scandinavian
Scandinavian countries are not socialist countries. They are welfare capitalist.

>Ivory Coast
>free market

Nope. It was a commodity plantation which rolled around in money briefly then went bust.

Nazi Germany was Socialist, and it worked really well.
Until the Soviets came and ally bombings.

>and it worked really well
spoils of war is not evidence of a strong economy. it's evidence of a windfall.

You think leafs and burgers will understand the difference between socialism and social democracy

Worked well for about 4 years but then again so did the USSR

>welfare
artificially creating a system where a portion of the workforce no longer needs to be a part of the workforce is the recipe for justifying more immigrants.

>we need moar peepl to support the base of our service economy
>why not employ the peolpe on welfare?
>nah, let's bring in moar immigrants, they are doctors and lawers afterall
>okay :^D

History for a "Based" Australian:
Before Hitler, Germany was in a great Depression after ww1. Once Hitler was elected, he helped Build factories and Jobs, which is why they almost invaded all of Europe.

>Direct democracy is what's needed

Hahaha, oh wow. This post can't be real.

>t for long

Would the Amish be considered socialist?

Yugoslavia & Tito

same thing in china, but look at it today. the standard of living is better than it was before, yeah, but it's not as good as it could be, and it's damn sure behind anything in south korea or japan, or australia, or the united states.

China is more Capitalist.

and it's still suffering from decades of socialist communism. go there.

a hospital in china is like a run down warehouse, unless you have millions of dollars. a house is a slum dump.

The ideal solution to this would be to distribute work more equitably (more free time and free days).

>The ideal solution to this would be to distribute work more equitably (more free time and free days).

Prices distribute work more effectively and efficiently than any human run, computer run, or artificial system ever could.

Whether you are a marxist, free marketist, or whatever, you need to read this book. It will help you form your understanding of why economic policies work and do not work.

>Direct democracy is what's needed.

I agree, we need mob rule to decide whose money we steal and who receives it

That seems like the most logical way to do things

but daym son dat book is like 700 pages or sum shiet u think i got time to be readin n shiet

imma just go on the internet and pretend i know anything bout dat economiks

The only way socialism can work is when it's Nationalized.
One homogeneous ethno-state, it's easy to understand why it works, people are more inclined to care when they know 100% of their countrymen are THEIR countrymen.
Plus, in NatSoc, socialism is nothing but an economic format instead of an all encompassing ideology like it is in the West.

No. It is incompatible with human nature.

on paper all systems work, but as long as there are people in power... no system will work.... greed kills all systems...

Ants and Bees approve.

Also read The Vision of the Anointed and The Quest for Cosmic Justice. Sowell is based as fuck.