• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Socialism Fails

A good article detailing why the Soviet system failed and why any similar system will fail. As he says, the problem isn't the jockey but the horse.



Why Socialism Fails | Hoover Institution

Could the article be any more obvious that it doesn't have the slightest clue about the difference between authoritarian socialism and democratic socialism? This isn't rocket science. This is a distinction that a child can learn.
 
Could the article be any more obvious that it doesn't have the slightest clue about the difference between authoritarian socialism and democratic socialism? This isn't rocket science. This is a distinction that a child can learn.

There is no difference other than the name attached to it. Central planning is central planning and the left has become enamored of it to a great degree. This is a discussion of the economics of it. The totalitarianism is a necessary adjunct to force people to comply, whether the plans are failing or not.
 
Yes, his broad brush of socialism bad! was also extend to other economic types:

Gorbachev failed because the core of the Soviet planned system was rotten Despite his reform inclinations, he remained a believer in socialism. He was determined to save Soviet socialism by making it more like capitalism. In so doing, he created an economy that was neither planned nor a market—a chaotic free-for-all, which the Russian people regrettably associate to this day with that they came to call “wild capitalism

Hey Gregory, the U.S. is also a mixed economy, neither planned nor a market. Did your mind just get blown?
A mixed economy is variously defined as an economic system blending elements of market economies with elements of planned economics, free markets with state interventionism, or private enterprise with public enterprise.

Oh noes! The U.S. economy has been liburalized!! Damn socialism infected us!!!

Posting some opinion propaganda without really citing some particular claim you're intrigued with, etc., to me just looks like you're pushing anti-liberal propaganda, using socialism as a broad brush, just like most absurd right-wing nutters do.

So if we're debating if that's a good article, I agree with Phys251, it's absurd and not worth a read.
 
Here comes the "venezuela QED" posts.
 
There is no difference other than the name attached to it.

And there it is. A point-blank admission that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Let me help you. There is a massive difference between the authoritarian socialism of the USSR and China (which has become more capitalist) and the democratic socialism of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc. Notice how the article completely left out any mention of the latter examples? It's as if you and the article writer don't want us to experience more wealth parity, less poverty, more education parity, a greener economy, a healthcare system that doesn't bankrupt people when they get sick, and other such horrible things. Makes one wonder why you don't want that.
 
And there it is. A point-blank admission that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Let me help you. There is a massive difference between the authoritarian socialism of the USSR and China (which has become more capitalist) and the democratic socialism of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc. Notice how the article completely left out any mention of the latter examples? It's as if you and the article writer don't want us to experience more wealth parity, less poverty, more education parity, a greener economy, a healthcare system that doesn't bankrupt people when they get sick, and other such horrible things. Makes one wonder why you don't want that.

Norway, Sweden and Denmark are capitalist countries despite what the left says. They are also not very useful as comparisons to the US due to population size, etc. Your assumptions that we will experience "more wealth parity, less poverty, etc, etc," are also unproven claims and where central planning has been tried, it is an abject failure. Look at Venezuela. Nobody is claiming that it is a Communist country, however, it tried to employ many of the same concepts the left champions now. The only thing we will have, as Churchill said, is "the equal sharing of misery".
 
And there it is. A point-blank admission that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Let me help you. There is a massive difference between the authoritarian socialism of the USSR and China (which has become more capitalist) and the democratic socialism of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc. Notice how the article completely left out any mention of the latter examples? It's as if you and the article writer don't want us to experience more wealth parity, less poverty, more education parity, a greener economy, a healthcare system that doesn't bankrupt people when they get sick, and other such horrible things. Makes one wonder why you don't want that.

Its propaganda for people who think giving corporations a blank cheque to pollute, to screw over consumers and in the case of healthcare to provide as little care as possible for the highest price = Freedom.

All so stockholders and fat cats get whats theirs.

Republican voters have been brainwashed into believing that "pro-business" in the Republican context will lead them to prosperity, but all it is, the blank cheque of "deregulation" actually ends up hurting them in the end and they'll never realize it.

Meanwhile the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
 
Norway, Sweden and Denmark are capitalist countries despite what the left says. They are also not very useful as comparisons to the US due to population size, etc. Your assumptions that we will experience "more wealth parity, less poverty, etc, etc," are also unproven claims and where central planning has been tried, it is an abject failure. Look at Venezuela. Nobody is claiming that it is a Communist country, however, it tried to employ many of the same concepts the left champions now. The only thing we will have, as Churchill said, is "the equal sharing of misery".

:lamo

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy.[2]​

Like I said. No clue from you. :lol:
 
Yes, his broad brush of socialism bad! was also extend to other economic types:



Hey Gregory, the U.S. is also a mixed economy, neither planned nor a market. Did your mind just get blown?


Oh noes! The U.S. economy has been liburalized!! Damn socialism infected us!!!

Posting some opinion propaganda without really citing some particular claim you're intrigued with, etc., to me just looks like you're pushing anti-liberal propaganda, using socialism as a broad brush, just like most absurd right-wing nutters do.

So if we're debating if that's a good article, I agree with Phys251, it's absurd and not worth a read.

Because the point of it escapes you, doesn't make it a bad article. The point is that central planning will fail, period. Yet, the left wants as much central planning as possible.
 
There is no difference other than the name attached to it. Central planning is central planning and the left has become enamored of it to a great degree. This is a discussion of the economics of it. The totalitarianism is a necessary adjunct to force people to comply, whether the plans are failing or not.

No difference other than the fact that they are different? This is why we ended up with Trump isn't it. Just a complete lack of reasoning/awareness?

We're already forced to comply with government, that's what the **** a government is. We're forced to pay taxes. We're forced to get certain licenses to do certain things.
Good lord, crazy bubble.
 
:lamo

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy.[2]​

Like I said. No clue from you. :lol:

That's gobbledy-gook nonsense. "social ownership of the means of production" immediately means a planned economy and it will fail. "Decentralized, planned socialist economy"? How is something both decentralized yet planned by the government? Call it what you will but it's the same old thing with a new name and it will make us all poorer.
 
No difference other than the fact that they are different? This is why we ended up with Trump isn't it. Just a complete lack of reasoning/awareness?

We're already forced to comply with government, that's what the **** a government is. We're forced to pay taxes. We're forced to get certain licenses to do certain things.
Good lord, crazy bubble.

Yes, we have to comply with government. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. What we don't need is MORE of it, especially not to where they are running the damn economy. This is nuts.
 
Because the point of it escapes you, doesn't make it a bad article. The point is that central planning will fail, period. Yet, the left wants as much central planning as possible.

You guys and your fake news, fake information, fake debating, fake absolutist bull****. When will it end?
 
You guys and your fake news, fake information, fake debating, fake absolutist bull****. When will it end?

That's the default response to be expected when you can't make any more valid arguments or engage in rational discussion.
 
Yes, we have to comply with government. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. What we don't need is MORE of it, especially not to where they are running the damn economy. This is nuts.

How do you know we don't need more of it? Or less of it? We needed more of it years back, we've needed more as our economy and knowledge has grown, what magical fairy whispered into your ear this absolutist "we don't need MORE!" nonsense to you? Hannity? Rush? You do know they are rich celebrities as a result of telling you bull**** right?
 
That's the default response to be expected when you can't make any more valid arguments or engage in rational discussion.

You didnt' respond to me in your reply, you simply claimed I "didn't understand". Try harder veritas1, this is hilarious.
 
That's gobbledy-gook nonsense. "social ownership of the means of production" immediately means a planned economy and it will fail. "Decentralized, planned socialist economy"? How is something both decentralized yet planned by the government? Call it what you will but it's the same old thing with a new name and it will make us all poorer.

Repeating your same lies over and over again does not make then true. You have no clue what the hell you're talking about, you certainly don't even know what democratic socialism is despite a definition being clearly provided for you so that you could read it. Maybe reading comprehension is where you struggle the most?
 
This is an aged argument, and as the term "socialism" gets thrown around we will see more and more articles talking about where socialism failed.

The economic debate though already knows that strict socialism will eventually fail, just as strict capitalism will eventually fail. What ends up happening in terms of sociology and economics is looking to a blend of market and planned forces.

Our type of governance and our type of economic model suggest balances.

Even when we have those arguing for a move towards one end of the scale or the other, odds are we will not see near the shift being pushed for.
 
You didnt' respond to me in your reply, you simply claimed I "didn't understand". Try harder veritas1, this is hilarious.

Veritas does not understand because he does not want to understand. If he did, it'd undermine his entire argument.
 
Because the point of it escapes you, doesn't make it a bad article. The point is that central planning will fail, period. Yet, the left wants as much central planning as possible.

That strawman is old and worn out.

You see the problem you've made for yourself here? Damning socialism/communism/central planning or whatever is all fine and dandy, at least until the middle gets squeezed to death by YOUR alternative -> our rigged capitalism. Once that happens, people might start (maybe mistakenly) thinking that the alternatives you've been damning for 75 years might be better.
 
How do you know we don't need more of it? Or less of it? We needed more of it years back, we've needed more as our economy and knowledge has grown, what magical fairy whispered into your ear this absolutist "we don't need MORE!" nonsense to you? Hannity? Rush? You do know they are rich celebrities as a result of telling you bull**** right?

So, you think the government should run the entire healthcare system? How about the energy industry? Once they get those, where will it stop? History should tell you. BTW, Hannity and Rush are rich for the same reason that liberals with TV shows are rich, which is that they live in a free market capitalist system. What we need is MORE capitalism, more freedom, more businesses, more commerce, and more wealth creation because by doing that, you lift up the greatest number. Only a wealthy country can help its poor citizens. A poor one cannot and socialism will inevitably lead to making us poorer.
 
That strawman is old and worn out.

You see the problem you've made for yourself here? Damning socialism/communism/central planning or whatever is all fine and dandy, at least until the middle gets squeezed to death by YOUR alternative -> our rigged capitalism. Once that happens, people might start (maybe mistakenly) thinking that the alternatives you've been damning for 75 years might be better.

The alternatives are not better. The answer isn't to scrap capitalism but to unleash it to its full potential. If government has gotten involved to "rig" it, why would we want them even more involved, regardless of what you want to call it?
 
A good article detailing why the Soviet system failed and why any similar system will fail. As he says, the problem isn't the jockey but the horse.



Why Socialism Fails | Hoover Institution

Mixed economies appear to work best. One fault of that mix to beware of is socializing costs while privatizing profits (which is often called 'crony capitalism').
 
So, you think the government should run the entire healthcare system? How about the energy industry? Once they get those, where will it stop? History should tell you. BTW, Hannity and Rush are rich for the same reason that liberals with TV shows are rich, which is that they live in a free market capitalist system. What we need is MORE capitalism, more freedom, more businesses, more commerce, and more wealth creation because by doing that, you lift up the greatest number. Only a wealthy country can help its poor citizens. A poor one cannot and socialism will inevitably lead to making us poorer.

At what level does it become "central planning"?

Country? State? City? Street? Household? "central planning" is a strawman.
 
Back
Top Bottom