Where has Socialism Worked Part2

No, the FACT is that the term Socialism no longer means anything.

Click to expand...

It has a lot of meaning. It is those wanting socialism injected into society either outright or bit by bit like a emergency care patient on an IV that seek to deny its existence.

Here are the examples given as proof socialism works.
Three basic categories... Some:

1. Ancient Empires.
Ancient Empires. Not a very strong example of it working here and now.

2. Baltic countries.
Their standard of living in the EU is not above America's by a long shot.
http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf
They are paring it down whenever possible.

WHY DID THE SWEDISH MODEL FAIL?
http://socialistregister.com/socialistregister.com/files/SR_1993_Meidner.pdf
Here a socialist deconstructs Sweden's socialist failures.


3. Small Medieval societies.
4. Jewish Kibbutz
5. Primitve Tribes
Small groups unfit as examples for a country of 300 million or 5 million, unless the people acted in this manner of their own free will.

6. Highway system.
Well, it seems to work.
The beauty of it is once it is built it requires minimal and specific maintenance. Road construction is fundamentally unchanged over the better part of 70-years. Bridges
Projects are built by the private sector, funded through taxes.

1. Roman Empire.
2. Persian Empire.
3. Egyptians.
4. Chinese.
5. Norway.
6. Canada.
7. The medieval, communual village.
8. The monastries.
9. And primitive tribes.
10. Jewish Kibbutz.
11. native indian cultures in the African jungle and Andes mountains.
12. The highway system of America
13. Sweden, arguebly the most Socialist country on the planet?

Click to expand...

In all it is as RiverDad stated:

No, it's never succeeded because people yearn for freedom and socialism depends on coercion and the stripping away of freedom in order to exist in its varied guises.

Click to expand...

Ancient and small primitive tribes might enjoy successes, but the Pilgrims showed otherwise.

I agree with the below. It is eerie.

This is a speech from Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture. Kruschev was eerily correct about our future.

"I have talked face to face with the godless communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Kruschev for a half day when he visited the United States, not that I'm proud of it. I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But, according to President Eisenhower, Kruschev had expressed a desire to learn something of American Agriculture — and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why. As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom he arrogantly declaired in substance:

" 'You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright, but we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you'll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won't have to fight you. We'll so weaken your economy until you'll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.'

"And they're ahead of schedule in their devilish scheme."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...ever-succeeded-one-time-6.html#post1057942036

american welfare that started as a result of the civil war

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
The canons are quiet on the Leftist front?

.

So, wait... As for all the people who did give correct answers to the challenge in your original post?

Do they win a prize?

Or is part 2 the disclaimer after the fact...

Although many of you gave factually correct answers to the challenge in my original post, your answers were technically wrong because they did not take into account the double-secret stipulations and conditions behind my question. You see, to just offer up any old example of socialism not failing didn't support my talking points argument, so, regretfully, I cannot accept your answer. In the future, please try to only give answers that support the unstated premise of my question. Better luck next time.

You could at least offer a consolation prize...

As I recall, your first thread was marked by the final post (my own), being an illustrative and extensive analysis of the successes of libertarian socialism (specifically anarchism), in the social revolution that occurred during the Spanish Civil War, which involved several million participants. You did not reply.

The problem is always the same, as a group of humans, be it a tribe, a city state, a nation... becomes successful, it becomes lazy. The principles that lead to it's creation are forgotten and over ridden by a desire for a less stressful life. The people give up freedoms and powers to those they trust (i.e. the government) and finally end up being enslaved and the nasty process starts all over again. It's a cycle that has repeated through out history.

If you read deToqville (spelling bite me), he basically forsaw this decent from a fiercely proud independent people into a coddled child like people reliant on the government. Soft tyrrany

This topic is pointless. You are simply going to get into different interpretations of the WORD Socialism & opinions.
How about discussing which type of cake is more moral, chocolate or white cake??

MrVicchio said:

If you read deToqville (spelling bite me), he basically forsaw this decent from a fiercely proud independent people into a coddled child like people reliant on the government. Soft tyrrany

Click to expand...

It's irritating enough when this is referred to during stale debates about the welfare state. It becomes more aggravating still when referred to regarding socialism, especially when I just referred to anarchism, termed "the no-government system of socialism" by Kropotkin.

zimmer. Define socialism.

zimmer said:

It has a lot of meaning. It is those wanting socialism injected into society either outright or bit by bit like a emergency care patient on an IV that seek to deny its existence.

Here are the examples given as proof socialism works.
Three basic categories... Some:

1. Ancient Empires.
Ancient Empires. Not a very strong example of it working here and now.

2. Baltic countries.
Their standard of living in the EU is not above America's by a long shot.
http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf
They are paring it down whenever possible.

WHY DID THE SWEDISH MODEL FAIL?
http://socialistregister.com/socialistregister.com/files/SR_1993_Meidner.pdf
Here a socialist deconstructs Sweden's socialist failures.


3. Small Medieval societies.
4. Jewish Kibbutz
5. Primitve Tribes
Small groups unfit as examples for a country of 300 million or 5 million, unless the people acted in this manner of their own free will.

6. Highway system.
Well, it seems to work.
The beauty of it is once it is built it requires minimal and specific maintenance. Road construction is fundamentally unchanged over the better part of 70-years. Bridges
Projects are built by the private sector, funded through taxes.





In all it is as RiverDad stated:


Ancient and small primitive tribes might enjoy successes, but the Pilgrims showed otherwise.

I agree with the below. It is eerie.



http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...ever-succeeded-one-time-6.html#post1057942036

Click to expand...

The United States of America. :2wave:

Arch Enemy said:

american welfare that started as a result of the civil war

Click to expand...

Not a success.

Also not a nation.

Oh, and just to elaborate some more, we could also turn to the aforementioned Israeli kibbutzim (though they do suffer from the deficiency of minimal participation), the Makhnovists and the Free Territory of Ukraine, the autonomous Shinmin region of Kim Jwa-jin, the Paris Commune, etc.

Bolivarian socialism has had some degree of implementation in Venezuela, of course, and I believe we can extrapolate empirical data about the functioning of worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives in a capitalist economy to a potential socialist economic model.