Are not China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam proof that socialism works?

Are not China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam proof that socialism works?

Other urls found in this thread:

fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2016.pdf
amazon.com/Saving-Capitalism-Capitalists-Unleashing-Opportunity/dp/0691121281
gazeta.ru/2001/11/01/petravenokra.shtml
foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/22/the-unlearned-lessons-from-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state#List_of_current_states_described_as_communist
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

do not fall into their rhetorical tricks, make your own
instead of claiming they were real socialism or real communism, claim they were attempts at socialism and communism (which they are)
attempts count just as much

>try socialism in a shithole country
>shithole country remains a shithole
"See? This proves socialism doesn't work!"

It's to broad question, you can have varrying degree of socialism. Unless you mean communism, then no.

Haven't all those countries liberalized their economies? And the DPRK is more like a neo feudal-monarchist state.

The best example, which you didn't list for the success of socialism, would be Yugoslavia.

Have there been any successful attempts at ancapism? Oh yeah, no.

Fair point.

So why then East Germany remained ruined shithole while West Germany flourished?
Even to this day you can notice economical disproportions between the two.

Have you fucking seen the state of those kuntries

Fortunately, we have a wealth of data indicating that, to the degree that socialist policies are implemented, the country suffers economically.

fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2016.pdf

>Have there been any successful attempts at ancapism?
90s russia was a perfectly successful an-cap nation. And as is due in an-cap systems it caused the biggest social crisis in the modern era that din't involve a war.

In what way was '90s Russia anarchic? If I recall correctly a state did exist which somewhat precludes the possibility of anarchy.

>Have there been any successful attempts at ancapism
Celts did it well for about 600 years. The city states of Venice were very close to ancap. Pre19th century and precolonial america were very much ancap. Usually whenever new land is available ancap thrives.

China is capitalist

It existed in same way as state exists in Somalia.

Гoвнa въeбaл? Paшкa в 90-ых имeлa aбcoлютнo тaкyю жe экoнoмичecкyю мoдeль кaк и Швeция c нaлoгaми в 70% и кyчeй peгyляций, тoлькo c oднoй ocoбeннocтью - Eльцин пpoдaл дpyзьям зaвoды пo нoминaльным цeнaми. B книжкe "Cпaceниe кaпитaлизмa oт кaпитaлиcтoв" цeлaя глaвa этoмy пocвящeнa, пoчитaй.

>state did exist
90s russia had a state in the same way modern ukraine has a state, or perhaps to give you a better example - in the same way that roman empire had a state just prior to being overrun by barbarians.

Moskow was barely able to govern Moscow. In 1993 the President had to use the Army, to take over the Parlament. And that was AFTER he had to use the Army and the Parlament to take out CPSU. The things that were going regions are downright ludicrous. They were overrun with variety criminal bosses, ex soviet state apparatus loyalists and/or ethnic warlords. By 1999 everyone in the west believe that russia will collapse any day now and can be balkanised and cannibalised for resources even further than it already was.

Than Putin happened. And people still wonder why Russians support him.

Yes, socialism works if you don't take it to an extreme (as is the case weith taking anything to an extreme). China is more capitalistic these days than socialist though, but they do take better care of their workers. Their working conditions are probably better than some in the States.
It's all about striking a balance. I know Americans probably can't comprehend this idea since you all seem to have binary minds.

China, Laos and Vietnam all abandoned socialist economies.

Cuba did the same thing but in a different way.

North Korea is a weird pseudo-monarchy in which the entire resources of the nation have been harnessed for the gratification and exaltation of a single family.

Take from that what you will.

He's retarded. Russia in 90's had taxes at ~70% rate and mass spread corruption because some people wanted power. Here's book on the topic, there is whole chapter there dedicated to explaining what has happened in 90's Russia

amazon.com/Saving-Capitalism-Capitalists-Unleashing-Opportunity/dp/0691121281

>Гoвнa въeбaл? Paшкa в 90-ых имeлa aбcoлютнo тaкyю жe экoнoмичecкyю мoдeль
Ha бyмaгe - дa. Ha пpaктикe - нихyя. Peгиoны хyй лoжили нa тo чтo им гoвopилa мocквa, в caмoй мocквe цeлыe paйoны пpaвилиcь иcключитeльнo мaффиeй. A эти oпyпeть кpyтыe нaлoги плaтилиcь тoлькo c бeлoй экoнoмики кoтopaя дaжa нa тpeть вceй экoнoмики нe тянyлa. He вoзникaй o хepнe o кoтopoй нe знaeшь.

Awesome. I've always wanted to work for 50c a day whilst some fat shit in a capitalist country buys the machine I built only to die in a horrible industrial accident

>пpyфы: бaбкa cкaзaлa
Hяш, я пoнимaю, чтo y тeбя жyткoe вaжнoe и aвтopитeтнoe мнeниe(нeт), нo инoгдa пo тeмe нaдo читaть cпeциaлиcтoв, a нe хyйнёй в интepнeтe cтpaдaть. Ha дocyгe пoчитaй
gazeta.ru/2001/11/01/petravenokra.shtml

O дa экcпaт либepacт линкyющий гpaнтoeдoв кoтopыe зaявляют чтo шгoкoвaя тepaпия этo вooбщe миф этo пиздeц aвтopитeтнoe мнeниe.

Sounds interesting user
Got any links for further reading?

Do ancaps and libertarians point out the most extremist and extremist examples of socialism failing because they're only interesting in promoting extremist and radical capitalism and markets?

The ideal system would include a mixture of both liberal markets and high income taxation and redistribution to mitigate the inequality caused by capitalism and increase demand of the lower classes which increases economic activity in a loop.

True, ancapish ideas thrive in virgin land since it's predicated on constant economic growth. It sort of works only on the frontier, but once the frontier turns to established towns and communities it's a recipe for misery.

I know too little about those societies to comment on whether they were ancap. Two things to point out though, is that just because a system has lasted for very many years, that doesn't mean that most people in the society benefited from it, as with feudalism. And do any historians of those societies consider them libertarian, or is it just libertarian commentators and social theorists?

foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/22/the-unlearned-lessons-from-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union/

It's hard to find a work that isn't horribly biased, but I find this set of articles by FP should give you the general Idea.

None of them are socialist anymore you retard. They all abandoned socialism because it didn't work. China & Vietnam particularly are more capitalist than ever. KYS fucking normie.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state#List_of_current_states_described_as_communist

>The ideal system would include a mixture of both liberal markets and high income taxation and redistribution to mitigate the inequality caused by capitalism and increase demand of the lower classes which increases economic activity in a loop.

I agree we need mix of both, but I don't like idea of robinhooding in the economy. Why not flat tax? Why are you punishing success in the name of feedeing those who are to lazy to go beyond diging diches as their career path?

Societies that do benefit the most generally do last longer. Feudalism was generally short-lived in the areas in which it did occur but, for the time it lasted, it is easy to argue that it did benefit the majority of its charges.

Robin Hood was a thief who tried to benefit the poor and destitute. The thing is he was a non-state actor who robbed people at random.

What I'm promoting is that state, in a formal, consistent, and predictable way extract more from the highest income earners. I'd say a top marginal tax rate of 70% to start out. This would lower taxation for the lowest tax earners. Bill Clinton called this middle class tax relief and I'd support that.

A flat tax has it's problems. It's a very regressive tax program and is promoted not for being effective but just to allow the wealthy to keep more of their income. It does not promote the economy but instead does the opposite. When lower income people pay more taxes, the decreases their demand and thus hurts the economy. High income earners don't just "create jobs" because they have more money at their disposal. They will only invest in jobs if the underlying demand is in the economy. Those we can expect a flat tax or low tax system to allow the wealthy to hoard or spend on frivolous things like vacations but not actually promote economic activity and shared prosperity. I'd rather have more dollars circulating through the economy than for capital to stagnate at the top.

It's not "punishing" anybody; I'm not promoting a punitive tax system, although those on the left may do that there are other reasons to promote taxation.

>Why not flat tax? Why are you punishing success in the name of feedeing those who are to lazy to go beyond diging diches as their career path?
Not arguing for or against flat or progressive taxation models, but to answer your question - flat taxation model does nothing to punish monopolies, which are bad from both socialist and capitalist perspectives.

Progressive tax usually doesn't mean that if you are a high ranking manager you'd be payign much more % than a janitor, it usually aims at people who are in the upper 10% of a capitalist society, where money=power=money and where competence of many people have very little to do with their wealth.

Tho one could just hike inheritance taxes, but that's another discussion entirely.

You don't even need to click the link. "Described as" isn't the same actually in practice

Robin Hood, if the legends are to believed, returned money unjustly taxed by state actors to its original owners. The fact that you choose to remember the legend as a socialist redistributive parable says a lot about you and your education.

And it's kind of pulling the cart before the horse to assume that the poorest among us are just lazy. They are more likely suffering because of the system we have created which rewards the already rewarded ad assumes all hard times are self-inflicted. Sure the truly lazy shouldn't receive benefit but that's no reason not to have social programs for the many.

And also a flat tax is never going to truly happen. The Reagan tax cuts were agreed by the Democrat controlled Congress because he agreed to couple the cuts with elimination of tax loopholes and deductions. Thus rightists are able to claim that cutting taxes actually brought in more income, while in the following years deductions and loopholes were reintroduced.

People want incentives for being married, home-ownership, et cetra. The government will always bring these things back into play because of that. It's good to have a tax system that promotes those things that are good for society.

If we create a flat tax and close all loopholes at a lower rate the we lose those incentives and will bring in less revenue.

>Not arguing for or against flat or progressive taxation models, but to answer your question - flat taxation model does nothing to punish monopolies, which are bad from both socialist and capitalist perspectives.

You can have anti-monopol laws regardless of your taxation model. If I'm not mistaken Americans have progressive taxes, yet if you look at their biggest companies, they are merging and crystalizing rather then diversify into smaller ones.

>Progressive tax usually doesn't mean that if you are a high ranking manager you'd be payign much more % than a janitor, it usually aims at people who are in the upper 10% of a capitalist society, where money=power=money and where competence of many people have very little to do with their wealth.

Well yeah, but this 10% usually s capable enough to legally hide income and usually end up paying less taxes that the rest. If you want to hit them you should aim for things like corporate tax or taxes from dividends.

Or it says a lot about popular culture? I've never studies Robin Hood and didn't bring it up initially. Perhaps it says a lot about you. Or perhaps it says nothing since it's not actually all that relevant to the discussion.

But socialism DO work. It's stable and all. The problem is that it harms the people and its identity. So it works for the elites that control the socialist state.

So where did feudalism or some ancapish system last for a very long time and accrue benefits to most people? You're sort of begging the question by speaking so vaguely.

More likely it accrued benefits to more classes in the more successful places, but no the lowest of the society. Not exactly a success story. Better for the time but I'm sure some modern systems tried back to the middle ages would do even better.

The degree these countries have improved their economies and living standards is correlated with the amount of economic and social freedom they have adopted over the decades. China and Vietnam have improved the most by becoming the most economically open of these nations, while more hardline communist states like Cuba and especially North Korea have not fared as well. Even Cuba has adopted more economic freedom despite the regime still preaching the old failed ideology.

What's funny is even NK introduced some liberalization to end it's famine and is eyeing reform today as well.

(((Frasier institute)))

You don't even have to get 3 pages in before this gets hilarious, the credentials of the guys that worked on this jesus christ

It would take days to dissect this but it's probably p-hacked to boot

>You can have anti-monopol laws regardless of your taxation model.
Yeah, but if you have the version that works you are already quite far from capitalism, simply because monopolies are naturally occuring entities, and breaking them up requires direct and serious state intervention in economic life, while all the half-measures deployed by, for example, US simply don't work.

>corporate tax
>taxes from dividends
Don't even open that can of worms. No one can tell for sure who pays those. Not a man. Why? Because it's up to the corporation itself to determine who to burden with them. I rather dislike corporate taxes in their entirety. Divedend taxes are a more reasonable form of that but still somewhat hard to meaningfully regulate.

>It's kind of pulling the cart before the horse to assume that the poorest among us are just lazy.

It's a little reductionist, for sure, because it leaves out intelligence. Given that the best predictors of lifetime success are IQ and conscientiousness it would be better to say that the poorest among us are, generally, the stupidest and laziest. Familial wealth is a factor, sure, but nowhere near as significant as the first two traits.

I specifically said that feudalism didn't last particularly long in the areas in which it was implemented. What I did imply is that our modern system of liberal democracy with relatively free markets and limited government (say what you want about the NSA or GCHQ they've got nothing on the regimes of China or the USSR) has lasted so long because it has provided the most benefit for the most people. When the unemployment benefit in West Germany is higher than the average wage in the East it's pretty clear which system benefits the most people to the largest degree.

>China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam

if they weren't complete shitholes yeah

The regressive tax will hit upper middle clas, but won't touch any of those filthy rich kind of guys, because as I mentioned here they know their ways to get around that.
Again you wan't outcomes of peoples work to be more equal by punishing more succssesful. You want poor to get better? Educate them. Learn them how to search better jobs, learn them more skills, etc. Throwing money at them never works.

>they know their ways to get around that.
You can use that argument and the "capital flight" one against ANY taxation policy aimed at the super-rich. But at that point you either do you best to enforce your tax policy or you give up trying.

>Yeah, but if you have the version that works you are already quite far from capitalism, simply because monopolies are naturally occuring entities, and breaking them up requires direct and serious state intervention in economic life, while all the half-measures deployed by, for example, US simply don't work.

Wasn't that what happened with Microsoft?

China had to create special economic zones with liberalized markets in order to stave off collapse. Unsurprisingly a shit load of people moved to these places. China is an example of even half a measure of Capitalism being better than socialism. North Korea can hardly be called successful. I don't have much knowledge of the other places to say one way or the other

>Wasn't that what happened with Microsoft?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Microsoft, in it's current form, doesn't have a near-complete monopoly on PC OS market?

I'm not sure which particular case you are referring to, but most of them either go nowhere or just try to limit multi-industry monopolies.

I had in mind strictly tax that you pay from income from your job. Rich avoid it by being buissness owners and/or investors. That's why I suggested corporate and divident tax, that would hit mostly them.

Cuba? Are you fucking serious? You must be a fucking idiot.

>Are you seriously trying to tell me that Microsoft, in it's current form, doesn't have a near-complete monopoly on PC OS market?

Apple is pretty big for casual-for-the-masses type of software. Linux is also pretty sucessful for more IT oriented users. Also Microsoft was destroyed in smartphoe OS sector. They are huge player, but I wouldn't say they have monoply on PC OS systems.

>I'm not sure which particular case you are referring to, but most of them either go nowhere or just try to limit multi-industry monopolies

2001 one.

I left room for a lot of the poor to be both stupid and lazy. I'm speaking in general. The poor may stupider and lazier, but marginally so.

Yes West Germany was a better society than East Germany. That isn't an argument against socialism or tempered capitalism however, it's an argument against communism.

Companies merge because we no longer have strong anti-trust protections. They would behave in this way whether taxation is high or low. Regardless we should have robust antitrust.

If people are legally able to hide income, then change those laws. Again regardless of tax policy, people are probably still going to behave in such a way.

I'm not for punishing anyone. It's not proven that cutting taxes on the wealthy makes the poor better off. Want improves everyone's lot in life is if the poorest people are buying more products thus increasing demand which gives businessmen opportunities to invest. Just because rich people have more money doesn't mean they're going to do something productive with it. Why punish the already poor among us? Giving tax breaks doesn't promote economic activity.

For more the US history we had high marginal tax rates. How do you explain this away? The deleterious effects you suggest simply weren't there.

And you can "throw money" at exactly those things you are suggesting. More job training and a job guarantee for instance. Or how about rebuilding roads, bridges, air and sea ports, etc. That's a role the government can play to promote jobs for everyone and can only be done if it has enough income.

>laos

Holy fuck.

The only thing keeping it floating are sexpats.

It makes North Korea look stable.

It's a sliding scale communism is merely a more extreme version of socialism. The data is robust, accessible and conclusive - the degree to which a country implements economic control is the degree to which all of its inhabitants suffer (except the bureaucratic elite).

Companies merge because one beats the other. Competition is always lurking in the background and any sensible director knows this which is why we never see quality falling or prices rising even when companies do hold near-monopolies. In fact, the only time we observe this effect is when a monopoly is granted by fiat.

Why would you think rich folks would pay Corporate tax but not Progressive tax? Add on top of that the fact that a corp can simply structure it's policy so that taxes are on the shoulders of customers and/or low-middle level workers, and you are worse off than not taxing them at all.

That's a lion, a fox, and a rabbit. That's not how a healthy market looks in no way it is like that.

If we add mobile markets in you'd also get android and probably boost Mac to another lion, but it's still, roughly speaking, 5 companies for 7 billion people.

>Yes West Germany was a better society than East Germany. That isn't an argument against socialism or tempered capitalism however, it's an argument against communism.
Ehh, I have no love for the clusterfuck that was CPSU economic policy, but lets be real here.

USSR was diplomatically and economically isolated, and had to repair all Warsaw Pact nations after a major war w/o a nice continent unmolested by it to fund the project. So yeah, planned economy was a shit idea, but you got to remember that that thing didn't occur until CPSU buried stalin. On the other hand his economic model was basically an exercise in state capitalism, quite a successful one at that.

One should be very careful when conflating socialist economy and communism, USSR alone had at least 4 different economic models troughout it's history, no to mention the one modern Russia and China are practicing.