Socialism

[tre14]

Does anyone know to what extent socialism has been used in the Third World since 1950 and its negative effects? I'm researching for a paper on the causes of the third world's woes and one of my reasons is the influence of socialism.

Any help would be appreciated.

[CaptHowdy]

do a search on google

[goblin6]

Originally posted by tre14
Does anyone know to what extent socialism has been used in the Third World since 1950 and its negative effects? I'm researching for a paper on the causes of the third world's woes and one of my reasons is the influence of socialism.

Any help would be appreciated.

Look at Cuba, and Angola and other such countries.

[irpker]

Look at the unemployment rates of European nations and the permanent under-class it creates.

[Starsky]

Socialists, on principle, scorn nationalism. They deem that the nation-state is an artificial entity. Socialists dont understand that it is not the nation-state system, but the failure of human beings to observe a few universal laws of morality that causes war. As long as they fail to comprehend this, it will continue to be a flawed ideology.

They also dont understand a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have. I think quite a few people in the world have succumbed to the utopian vision that is presented to them, only to find out that socialism leads down a path to broken dreams and empty promises. Regardless, the erosion of freedom, individualism and patriotism continue.

[Samoan]

Socialism is a Big Lie of the 20th century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery. Both socialism and communism, were responsible for the mass murders, of around a 100 million people, in the last century. That didn't include armed forces personnel and innocent people, who suffered and died in those conflicts, at that time.

Sometimes, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success, that gives government intervention, its pernicious seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

[Juggernaut]

isnt sweden socialist? you may want to look at them

[Ruthless4Life]

Canada isn't exactly socialist, but the HUGE taxes make it very similar.

[Starsky]

Socialism in Sweden, is more of a surface socialism, while it still needs the machinery of capitalism behind the scenes in order to make the whole thing work.


For Tre, Here's a short overview of Swedens formally socialist system, for others its a pretty good read on why true Socialism doesnt work:



It's true that Sweden was socialist for most of the twentieth century. The socialists took power in the early 1930s and held it until the early 1990s. It's also true that in comparison to the rest of Europe, the Swedish economy flourished until the 1960s. But that's not really because of Sweden's socialist proclivities. Rather, it's more because of that notorious economy-killer called World War II, an endeavor that Milton Friedman noted "Sweden had the good economic sense to avoid."*

Advocates of the "Sweden as the anti-Soviet" line of thought might also want to take note: Early socialist Sweden was hardly a utopia of political freedom and civil liberties. Mengele-ian social engineering projects saw government-enforced sterilization of thousands of "unfit" Swedes in the 1930s and 40s. As late as 1950, the Swedish government was still experimenting with lobotomies on alcoholics and convicts - often without their consent - in researching possible "cures" for such undesirable behavior.

By the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Swedish economy was tanking. Western Europe's post-war capitalist economies caught and passed Sweden relatively quickly. And by the 1980s, Sweden was on the verge of collapse. Businesses fled for more friendly tax jurisdictions in continental Europe and the U.S. Sweden experienced a brain drain as its sharpest minds fled to market-driven economies that rewarded knowledge and know-how with wealth. Entrepreneurs in Sweden were painted as pariahs. Ikea founder Ingvar Kamprad told Fortune magazine that Sweden's tax bureaucrats and politicians at the time routinely accused him of "using people" and "just wanting to make a profit."

By 1989, Sweden's unemployment rate had risen to 12%. Social spending had driven the government's budget deficit to 35% of government spending and 13% of GDP. Swedish welfare provisions stipulated that anyone fired or laid off from a job could get up to 80% of his original salary in public assistance. Consequently, absenteeism in the private sector approached 25%. Free, comprehensive national health care made Sweden the "sickest" country in Europe - so long as government picked up the tab, Swedes demanded the highest care for the feeblest illnesses. The system buckled. Because almost everything was provided for, and because of income tax rates approaching 90% in the highest brackets, Swedish households accumulated almost no savings, making them even more dependent on social programs once the economy soured.

In the early 1990s, the Swedes revolted at the ballot box. A neoliberal coalition led by Carl Bildt took power. Bildt quickly went to work. He capped national income taxes at 50%. He set corporate taxes at 28%. He rolled back regulations on telecommunications and banking. While hardly the epitome of laissez faire capitalism, those modest changes alone set in motion the path to Sweden's economic rebirth.

In 1994, the Social Democrats regained power - mostly because Bildt's slashing of government services ignited a backlash. But the signs of recovery were already in place, and so the Social Democrats, led by finance minister Goran Persson, followed Bildt's lead. More privatization of government-controlled industries. More tax cuts. To that they added more cuts in government spending, and a real effort to balance the federal budget.

The result? Native Swedish entrepreneurs who fled the oppressive tax and regulation codes to start businesses elsewhere brought their businesses and payrolls back to Sweden. Sweden today is home to some of the world's top telecommunications firms. In sharp contrast to the eugenicist philosophy of Sweden's ruling 1940s socialists, the streets of Stockholm and Goteborg teem with entrepreneurial immigrants from Asia and the Middle East.

The link to the whole article is at:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2210

[DarkFalcon]

Originally posted by Ruthless4Life
Canada isn't exactly socialist, but the HUGE taxes make it very similar.

Canada is far from socialist, it actually created more millionaires then the US last year. It does have a generous social structure and high taxation but it is far from a socialist state.

[xx0725]

Originally posted by Samoan
Socialism must commence with an enormous act of theft.

(very long and stupid post snipped)

Read some Marx and Lenin before you spout your crap-italist propaganda.

What purpose does the bourgeoise class serve?

[Starsky]

Originally posted by xx0725
(very long and stupid post snipped)

Read some Marx and Lenin before you spout your crap-italist propaganda.

What purpose does the bourgeoise class serve?

You mean the same Lenin who issued decrees ignaugurating the Red Terror, which would claim tens of thousands of dead? The same Lenin who had utter disregard for human life? The same Lenin who was prepared to "exterminate every Cossack to a man"?

Yes, the great socialist hero's. You sound just like one of my old Professors, the guy practically had seizures of joy every time he quoted Lenin. Glad to see there is still at least one person here who supports the mental disorder known as communism.

[ugotme]

Well, it would seem that any study of Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Mao would be merely for historical purposes. It's a little obvious that their social/economic theories were never proved, even though they had decades upon decades in a variety of countries to prove them.

tre - I know that Ethiopia also tried Marxism for a while and Libya has implemented a brand of socialism/Islam which was somewhat based on the socialism that Nasser of Egypt implemented. Libya can afford socialism at the moment because of the revenue from oil. Egypt has had to move to a more market oriented economy and still they are in shambles, in spite of being the second largest recipient of US aid. A good site that gives a brief overview of countries, economy included, is http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

[Ihateeveryone]

Socialism - You have two cows; you give one to your neighbour.
Capitalism - You have two cows; you sell one and buy a bull.
Communism - You have two cows; the government takes them away and provides you with milk.
Facism - You have two cows; the government takes them away and sells you the milk.
Nazism - You have two cows; the government takes them away and shoots you.

[FatFat Bastard]

LOL
Ihateeveryone that was funny

but in truth socialism...in it purest form did kind of work in places by the name of kibuts

If you read about the "Israeli kibbutz" you will see that it worked fairly well for some time.

[thewrestler14]

Originally posted by Ihateeveryone
Socialism - You have two cows; you give one to your neighbour.
Capitalism - You have two cows; you sell one and buy a bull.
Communism - You have two cows; the government takes them away and provides you with milk.
Facism - You have two cows; the government takes them away and sells you the milk.
Nazism - You have two cows; the government takes them away and shoots you.

Hey I've seen that on a poster. Give credit.

[ugotme]

Originally posted by FatFat Bastard
LOL
Ihateeveryone that was funny

but in truth socialism...in it purest form did kind of work in places by the name of kibuts

If you read about the "Israeli kibbutz" you will see that it worked fairly well for some time.

I think it's different for Israel though and here's why. Israel being a homeland for the Jews has been something passed down for thousands of years. It's a tradition that's been built upon generation after generation. That being said I really believe that the Jews who immigrated back to Israel realized the precarious situation they faced once there and would for the most part set aside human nature to truly work for the good of the community.

This is just my opinion btw.

[Ihateeveryone]

Originally posted by thewrestler14
Hey I've seen that on a poster. Give credit.

Stole it from my jokebook. The last line goes: Surrealism - You own two giraffes, the government requires you to take harmonica lessons

[jay81]

Socialism and capitalism both have their drawbacks. The negative aspects would be tilted heavier on the side of socialism of course but the best system is a marriage between both.

[jay81]

Originally posted by Samoan
How can you think communism is good? I've read the writings of your hero's Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels, Mao Tse-tung (Zedong), and enough Pro-Communist writings from other sources. Communism has only killed 100 million people. The countries that practice it have to hold their citizens hostage. The government owns your business, your house, your life. Theres no freedom; you can be imprisoned for speaking against the ruling majority. No free market; your economy will crumble just as every communist country. You need a history lesson, not to mention a ****ing clue.

If you like communism so much, why don't you move to Castro's Cuba? Enjoy life with those happy people on that island utopia. All of them love Communism! They're just having fun when they do everything in their power to escape it. Of course you would probably blame that on the government in place. You should realize, though that thats the only kind of government that can accompany communism.
Fact is communism sucks, and you do too.

Marx was an idiot. "Down with the Bourgeoisie class! Power to the Proletariat class!" Uhh...HAVE A GLASS OF SHUT THE **** UP JUICE!!!!!! You think a utopian society in which everyone is perfectly equal and there is no jealousy or great personal wealth is possible? The problem is that no human being genuinely wants to be equal to everybody else. People want their individuality. They want their own lives. To believe otherwise is to admit that YOU'RE A COMPLETE ****ING IMBECILE! I'm finished with this thread. Go to Cuba, go to North Korea, go to China or better yet dicksmoker - go to the hell that your marxist ass doesn't believe in!

This was directed at the guy further up the thread right?

I never said or implied I loved communism. I don't agree with it at all in it's pure form or even half.

[jay81]

Originally posted by Samoan
to xx0725. Not you. I can respect the veiws of everyone else on this thread.

Cheers!

[phreak]

[edit] also mistook Samoan's response as being to Jay81. Sorry![/edit]
It is not all black and white. However on this board there seems to be an implicit rule about there never being a middle ground.

I have to agree with you, Jay81. Both capitalism and socialism/communism have their pro's and contra's. I agree pure communism doesn't work. People will always be greedy. But does that mean that pure capitalism works?

Pure capitalism:
The government stops collecting taxes. From now on everyone is responsible only for him-/herself. No money is going to, e.g., the military. Or schools. Or healthcare. Or social security. Let's all leave it up to the good will of the people. Do you honestly think that will work? That it will NOT create an underclass of society that has absolutely no hope of ever bettering themselves (no money = no schooling = no opportunities (except possibly in crime))?

Pure communism:
Has already been discussed, and agreed: it doesn't work either.


All Western countries have a form of mixed capitalist/socialist government. Maybe not completely equal in how far they take each aspect, but nonetheless all mixed. The reason is, that no matter how good a system is, it is always PEOPLE who **** it up. If people weren't greedy, communism would work. If people were always generous capitalism would work.

[jay81]

Capitalism is vastly preferable, but imo you do need the better snippets ( yes there are some ) of socialism to achieve the ideal.

Take an example ... something as small as the city bus service where I live.

It's been privatized for some years now and has just turned to ****. It's run strictly for profit. Services at odd times are being cancelled left right and centre much to the detriment of some, routes are being inconveniently merged, all to save money. There's lapse control too, sometimes routes will be missed completely and others the drivers will go through their run slightly ahead of time just so they can get to the station earlier to allow time for a quick cigarette & coke. At other times drivers are pressured to work unrealistic time tables. It's a shambles.

There was none of this when it was government run. It wasn't being run for profit only ... there was adequate services and routes, the drivers were always on time to the minute, never early and never late. It was what it's intended to be, a public service. You could rely on it then, now you can't. Which is a tragedy. Many government services should never be privatized but unfortunately are under a closer to purely capitalist system. It's not all a bed of roses. This is just a very minor example.

[jay81]

Originally posted by phreak


All Western countries have a form of mixed capitalist/socialist government. Maybe not completely equal in how far they take each aspect, but nonetheless all mixed. The reason is, that no matter how good a system is, it is always PEOPLE who **** it up. If people weren't greedy, communism would work. If people were always generous capitalism would work.

Yeah it's just a matter of balancing out that hybrid, no nation has successfully achieved this yet although things are getting there slowly but surely. It's trial and error as with many things in life.

[CerealKiller]

Originally posted by Ihateeveryone
Socialism - You have two cows; you give one to your neighbour.
Capitalism - You have two cows; you sell one and buy a bull.
Communism - You have two cows; the government takes them away and provides you with milk.
Facism - You have two cows; the government takes them away and sells you the milk.
Nazism - You have two cows; the government takes them away and shoots you.

ROFLMAO And the moral of the story is keep the government away from your cows.

[Ihateeveryone]

Originally posted by CerealKiller
ROFLMAO And the moral of the story is keep the government away from your cows.

Or eat the bastards first

[xx0725]

Originally posted by Samoan
"Down with the Bourgeoisie class! Power to the Proletariat class!" Uhh...HAVE A GLASS OF SHUT THE **** UP JUICE!!!!!!

Hehehe... Nice rant -- it sounds as if you're the one that needs a good bowel movement.

Again, what purpose does the owning class serve?

[dave22]

Originally posted by xx0725
Hehehe... Nice rant -- it sounds as if you're the one that needs a good bowel movement.

Again, what purpose does the owning class serve?

They're the ones that provide the people jobs!!! Jesus man, can't have a factory without someone who owns one. Everyone talks of the evils of Corporate America, but corporations provide jobs, and stimulate the economy.

[Samoan]

I will say this xx:

Well no matter what I say, you will stand by your belief that the purpose of them is to get rich off the labor of the people. They have done a vast amount of the actual work themselves. They create jobs, ensure americans have employment so that the individual can profit themselves.

Workers in the most advanced capitalist countries are prosperous by the highest standard imaginable. Look at the difference between the prosperity the advanced capitalist countries and the impoverishment of the Third World.
Capitalism does have its flaws but at least many of which benefit the middle class and, arguably, the poor. In communism, ONLY THE PARTY benefits.

[tre14]

to xx42424242: read this. Using Marx's own logic socialism is dead.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=4954