After reading in econemic systems and how have they been applied, I started relaising how impossible it’s to have a good true socialist country.
Economists purposely don’t use terms like “capitalism,” “socialism,” and “communism” because their definitions are nebulous and often used for political reasons. Democratic socialists will point to Scandinavia as a highly successful model of socialism and liberals (in the classical since, not the American politics one) will consider those examples of capitalist countries.
Look at Apple products. Designed in America. Built in China. The chips inside require European technology and (usually) are made in Taiwan, South Korea, etc. South America, Africa, Oceania, etc. are also involved in the supply chain, whether it’s anything from mining raw materials to providing finished components. And that’s before we even get to the software, which might even involve Antarctica. (I don’t know if the McMurdo station has any public apps but they’re doing more than saying hello to the penguins. I assume some software has been written there.)
So, it’s sort of pointless to talk about “socialist” or “capitalist” economic systems in the modern era. You might as well argue with a mirror.
deleted by creator
*its
*economic
*realizing
*it is
Thank you, fixed it.
You’re welcome.
You’re also wrong. Take a look at Finland for example, where homelessness doesn’t exist. (With the exception of approximately 1,000 willfully nomadic people.)
From Wikipedia:
“The economy of Finland is a highly industrialised, mixed economy with a per capita output similar to that of western European economies such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The largest sector of Finland’s economy is its service sector, which contributes 72.7% to the country’s gross domestic product (GDP); followed by manufacturing and refining at 31.4%; and concluded with the country’s primary sector at 2.9%.”
I believe you misunderstood their economy.
Not at all.
Most economies that are a mix of capitalism and socialism are broadly classified as socialist, at least here in the US, because our version of capitalism is so vulgarly predatory.
Just because our economy and Finland’s share one aspect does not make the two comparable.
Where did I mention USA?
Huh???
How does this relate to my question?
Basically no country is what people state or think it is. Particularly if you as an american, it is like everything becomes communist or socialist if there are any social supports in the system.
Having said that a pure socialist system probably would not work, just like a direct democracy or pure democracy likely would not work… There is some form of mixed policies needed for economic growth and some social for safety of the citizens.
This isn’t a question. It’s trolling for an argument.
In their other thread they mentioned they got interested in ancap after reading the unibombers manifesto.
I have never seen trolling troll so hard.
From Wikipedia:
The economy of Norway is a highly developed mixed economy with state-ownership in strategic areas. Although sensitive to global business cycles, the economy of Norway has shown robust growth since the start of the industrial era. The country has a very high standard of living compared with other European countries, and a strongly integrated welfare system. Norway’s modern manufacturing and welfare system rely on a financial reserve produced by exploitation of natural resources, particularly North Sea oil.
Define true socialist. Name one true capitalist county.
Gr8 b8 m8
The problem isn’t socialism in the countries I’m sure you’ve seen (Soviets, etc), it’s totalitarianism. Leaders have used the guise of socialism to get the initial public support to gain power, and they make a show of it, but the real game in town is the power structure. Look into Pinochet’s Chile for a similar example with a hardcore capitalism as the economic system
No true Scotsman fallacy.
I will also argue that with human nature as it is, building socialism without totalitarianism is not possible. Or without mind control.
The fact is that totalitarian socialism is the only one that was possible to realize.
Well, it makes sense how that has happened. The revolution in Russia had many groups working together to kill the Tsar. Once he’s dead, the most militant and authoritarian is going to have the easiest time saying “I’m in charge, no objections right?”
And they did object sometimes, and the tanks turned around when they did.
USSR was one of many.
The soviets spent their entire existence trying to make all countries interested in socialism fall under their thumb. And the USA consequently spent a lot of time trying to make those socialist countries fail. Nothing happened in a vacuum
Oh my god this entire thread sucks. Norway isn’t fucking socialist and we should not aspire to be it because capital still reigns. You can’t have a mixed economy, either capitalists have power or they don’t. And OP, capitalism really is working great for the millions who starve to death every year or die of preventable diseases. The West benefits from wealth extracted from poor nations where such happens, we wouldn’t enjoy such a quality of life if not for their bodies. That’s a fucked up system. Much of what you hear about former socialist countries is actual propaganda because guess what, capitalists rule the world. You are not immune to propaganda.
Here something to read :
I beg young people to travel. If you don’t have a passport, get one. Take a summer, get a backpack and go to Delhi, go to Saigon, go to Bangkok, go to Kenya. Have your mind blown. Eat interesting food. Dig some interesting people. Have an adventure. Be careful. Come back and you’re going to see your country differently, you’re going to see your president differently, no matter who it is. Music, culture, food, water. Your showers will become shorter. You’re going to get a sense of what globalization looks like.
You could ask the same about “free market” capitalism, it’s impossible to have a successful truely capitalists economy too, the US is a mixed economy, China is also a mixed economy… Any future “socialist” based country would still have a mixed economy… The issue is not socialism vs capitalism, it’s a question of how much regulation is needed for the economy in order to minimize the suffering of people overall while increasing the average quality of life.
Some things are better handled collectively and with strong regulations; you probably want your heart surgeon to have a medical license, but you also probably don’t want to have to give up your house and life savings to get said surgery, you probably don’t want the plastic manufacturing company up river from your drinking water to just do what’s economically most profitably and dump their waste into the water, but you probably don’t want to pay the price for bottled water to nestle every time you turn on the tap either.
Since you’re on a reading kick maybe look into some of the past attempted creations of liberatian “utopias” and ask youself why anyone would be foolish enough to think that model might work,
I’d suggest to start: A libertarian walks into a bear.
It seems far more possible to have a good socialist country than it does a capitalist one
At least it ostensibly seeks equity, whereas capitalism is inherently inequitable, and no amount of regulation can ever change that
We’re so immersed in capitalism that we subscribe to the illusion that it’s a good system, similar to how people centuries ago would have perceived the divine right of kings
Define “good”. If you define as equity, then yes, I agree. Nearly everyone was equally repressed in socialist countries. Realizing freedom and human potential, no. Democratic capitalism is better.
“Democratic capitalism” is an oxymoron, as without an incredibly large number of regulations, capital will replace democracy as the primary decision maker, by design.
I really don’t know what you are talking about.
Ideals does not save the world, science and logic does.
Just for the sake of taking you seriously, can you mention the name of 1 successful socialist country?
I’m in the upper crust of an exploitative capitalist nation that relies on slavery, human trafficking, and genocide for the illusion of equity. Claiming that capitalist nations are saving the world is absolutely unhinged. We’re actually destroying the entire planet while we dance on the backs of many marginalized groups.
I’m actually anarchist, but I’m just saying socialist nations at least seek equity, unlike really egregiously awful countries like Canada and the US. I could name some nations that are better than this, but I suspect you’re not going to respond in good faith and/or will merely parroting McCarthyist brainrot.
How is science funded?
Through companies?
What’s the deal with these shit-ass loaded questions lately?
Are you talking about a pure socialist country, or socialist aspects within any system?
Pure socialist country.
Lol
You’re gonna have to put more effort than that. The world has more examples of socialism working than failing, so you’re gonna need to back your claims up with some examples of why it would be impossible.
Can you give me examples of socialism working?
Libraries, interstate highways, fire departments, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, are all things that are socialist programs here in the US, and they all work. Now, if they did higher education and healthcare, we might get somewhere.
For the US the pretty well known policy bangers are The New Deal and The Interstate Highway System both which are not just socialism but Federal level socialism.
All state run armed forces are by definition socialist in nature. Mercenary armed forces have been used many times to great effect but the backbone of most armed conflicts are the most socialist structure you could create.
Every large modern religion (abrahamic, hindu, buddhist) is socialist in nature and got to the level they are now due to socialist policy.
I meant as a country!
And fire departments, libraries, public schools, police departments, etc etc etc. Every government service funded by taxes are all socialist. And I’m sure OP doesn’t want to eliminate the police, do you OP?
I started realising how impossible it is to have a good true socialist country.
Why?
