Why doesn't socialism work?

The point is that a significant part of their economy is privatized.

 

The government of China controls everything, nothing is ever privatized in China. Even the internet is controlled by the government.

 

The Cold War was the primary motivation for any R&D the soviets engaged in. Had they won the Cold War, there would be no further need to develop anything at all.

The level of technology the soviets had achieved by the time they won, is exactly where humanity would be stuck. There would be no iPods, you and everyone else would be jamming to Walkmans and digging beer can pull tabs out of your feet.

But because a capitalist nation won the Cold War, there has been unfettered R&D into every aspect of your life. Safer containers for all kinds of products, better clothing, better insulation materials for your homes, better homes, better cars. And because you can find American products being used all over the world, the world is a much better place because of capitalism.

Capitalism provides and encourages competition, which provides better products at lower costs.

 

Struggling? I'm way middle class, and have more TV's than I can plug in, 2 cars, a truck, 4 motorcycles, just bought a home 10 months ago, and I'm just not seeing the struggle you are referring to.

It's not complex at all, the change you want to make will do nothing but make everyone equally poor. No socialist government has ever made everyone equally rich.

Wonder why.

Social imbalances, laff.

 

The reason why they wind up failing, is because they're largely depending on an industry in case of Venezuela petroleum. And everything's fine as long as petroleum fresh as premium dollar. Venezuela was poised to really capitalize on that. They produced what's called sweet crude meaning there's not a lot of sulfur in it it's easier to refine. When you factor in costs of refining and costs of purchasing it's probably cheaper to buy high-dollar crude that you spend less money refining. When Saudi Arabia decided to start producing it dropped the cost of their oil. Meaning nobody was buying from Venezuela anymore. since they depended on people buying oil for them to float their economy their economy collapsed. They couldn't afford to sell it cheaper because they were spending every penny that industry made.

With countries like Chile or the USSR, these countries experienced famine. I think the USSR faced famine mostly because Stalin was trading the food they grew for military equipment.

The sort of thing is always going to happen because socialism does not encourage competition it actually discourages it. It discourages innovation as well. Economies that are diverse tend to be more resilient.

 

Income redistribution and big government are immoral and repulsive, whether separate or together.

If Canada’s “workers” are doing well because they’re educated, talented, and their services are in demand, that’s very good. If they’re simply benefiting because the government is stealing from others to give to them, that’s tragic.

 

I don't think you can fairly label them as socialist.

 

If you don't have collective ownership of the means of production, you don't have socialism.

 

This is what I've been saying since the first post. Maybe they'll listen to you.

 

Was your family income below $63,179 in 2018? No? Then you were better off than half of American families.

You're going to tell me what I want to do with the economy?

Implying I want a socialist government. Absurd.

Rich people are ripping off lower- and middle-class folks.

 

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/646/does_socialism_work_a_classroom_experiment

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

 

Is Xi Jinping a Military general?

 

The government doesn't "control everything."

 

That is a nonsense position. While it is true that what you have described is pure Socialism - This form of Gov't does not exist - so bringing up the term in reference to some Gov't system - is pointless.

 

Fat chance of that. They have their heads stuck in the Angry Middle-Aged White Male Religious Traditionalist Open Mouth Media Echo Chamber.

 

No, collective production is the socialist part of self-described socialist countries.

 

There is no such thing - doesn't exist. Even in Stalin's Russia the Collective did not own the means of production in any meaningful way - the elite at the top owned/controlled everything.

A Pure socialist nation has never existed.

What 'self described socialist countries does the collective own all resources and means of production ?

 

They're doing well, in part, because the government is supporting them getting their share of the economic return.

 

They didn't own the means of production.

Of course not. People agree to do things for each other on a barter basis--it's all free enterprise.

There are countries where most of the production is collective.

 

Brilliant! Couldn't agree more.

 

There is no compromise, and no socialism - anywhere in the First World. There is only capitalist democracy.

FTR, and in case you're still confused: socialism isn't identified by what you GET, it's identified by what you GIVE. it's predicated on everyone pulling their own weight (plus a little extra).

 

Agree entirely. But would add the qualifier that it's only STATE socialism which can't work. Voluntary small scale socialism actually works very well.

 

You are very very wrong.

 

Socialism (freedom from liberty) is something that we should provide to small children
as we train them to take authority over and responsibility for themselves.

 

That's the fake version of socialism. The one which allows some people to do nothing, while others support them .. which is patently unjust, and about as anti 'social' as it gets.

Real socialism is does not provide free lunches .. that's the point of it.