Does Socialism lead us to tyranny, communism, or dictatorshi

Post Reply New Topic

All well and good, but that's not socialism. Capitalism+social welfare programs != socialism.

During the past two years, unemployment has jumped in Ireland by about 10 percentage points, the economy has contracted by 15% and people are trying to flee that country. There is a big deflation and lots of indebtedness. The foreign minister there boasted that had he tried his tricks in France, there "would have been riots in the streets".

In Latvia, the economy has shrunk by 25%.

In each of the countries, fiscal stimulus was rejected outright, and a strategy of the type favoured by Teabaggers was pursued.

Now there are demands for Greece and Spain to do likewise.

In 1931, the money elite forced Germany into austerity too against the people's wishes. The result is well-known.

In general, yes. And why shouldn't I? I suppose I would ignore peripheral things like private plots of land in the USSR, or the shadow/black market economy that apparently is active in a place like Cuba.



In that case, could you please define what you mean when you use the term "socialism?" I'd prefer that you couch your definition in economic and legal terms, as in who gets to own what and on what basis they get to own it. Or at any rate separate that part of your definition from what seems to me your irrelevant sweeping generalizations



Exactly. What these countries have is a mixed economy, like I said. An economy that is neither purely socialist nor purely capitalist, but contains large elements of both. Thank you for proving my point, I guess.



Whatever that means, it has nothing to do with the ordering of a particular economic system.



So, your "socialists" support private property rights, even to the point of tolerating or being actively in favor of massive, privately held industrial organizations? (Volvo, Saab, etc.) And also support the right of capitalists to conduct their businesses as they see fit and support the existence of things like equity markets, and presumably things like a private bond market? Just so I'm clear what does and does not make it into what you're calling socialism.





Even if this is true, how exactly does this preclude the US from being a mixed economy?



Nope, you're wrong, on at least two levels. First, in a capitalist society, government spending could hardly be anywhere near the percentage of GDP currently controlled by it in the US. Current US GDP is about $14.6 trillion, and current government spending at all levels (federal, state, local) is about $6.5 trillion. In other words, $.44 of every dollar produced in goods and services is consumed by government, either directly or in the form of promissory notes where they buy it today, and (in effect) promise to pay for it tomorrow.

Second, are you at all familiar with the regulatory regime that exists in the US? The gigantic structure that is government in the US regulates business in a wide range of areas, even to the point where businesses who follow the regulations of one agency would automatically violate them from another agency. (This circumstance isn't that common but used to happen with private pension plans regulated both by the Department of Labor and the IRS.)



This has nothing to do with the organization of an economy. And, in any event, you seem to be agreeing with me that what you're calling socialism can contain an enormous element of capitalism within it.



Which is irrelevant to a discussion of economics, even if you could prove this point.



None of which has absolutely anything to do with anything relating to you offering one scintilla of proof that European economies are organized along any lines other than as being a mixture of capitalism and socialism: As I said, and I guess will have to reiterate. Mixed economy. Not capitalist, not socialist. You've certainly offered no evidence that the US economy is anything other than mixed as well.





I did not address ends, but means. As in, the economy of Germany from 1933-45 was organized along certain lines, that to my eyes resembled socialism far more than they did capitalism, in the sense that the legal owners of capital really had very little say in how this capital was either organized or used.





Interesting point, but one that has nothing to do with anything in what I wrote. Or are you also positing that capitalism means capitalists surrender all ability to actually do what they like with their capital? As seems to be the case in Germany from 1936 forward.

I don't get why people are so afraid of socialism. All it means is that you pay extra taxes and the government provides more services. We've already socialized a bit with things like Medicare and--gasp--the postal service. I'm not a fan of hardcore communism, and I'm not a fan of socialist revolution or revolution of any kind, but have you seen all the things they have in Sweden? Like free education, living stipends, free healthcare...has their economy collapsed? Have they ceased to be moral or happy? The people there seem to like it an awful lot.

They are wrong about many things. They say that the United States, for example, will be destroyed by deficit and debt, that an inflationary spiral will sweep through the land. Japan's debt is 200% of its GDP, far more than what the U.S. has. According to these people, it should have been swept away in an inflationary spiral by now. Instead, they still have problems with deflation over there!

Part of the matter is an issue on what "socialism" means. That's part of the ongoing discussion on the thread. There is one side that argues that socialism refers to economies like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and there is another side that argues that it refers to economies like Sweden.

As for greater income distribution, I think the issue there tends to be a matter of a few things:
1) National values, the nations that aren't like Sweden don't have Swedish values and such systems threaten the existing values. This is particularly true in the US.
2) A belief that such policies would be poorly implemented in the US.
3) A belief that such policies actually have deleterious effects in Sweden on some issues.

I haven't seen recent reports on how their economy was handling the recession.

I did check it out though upon hearing your report. I heard that Ireland has an unemployment rate of 12.7%. http://www.dailymarkets.com/releases/20 ... te-at-127/ This is more like an increase by 8% and that is significantly higher than the US unemployment rate, but I am not sure calling it 10% is exactly correct.

It also appears as if the GDP in Ireland has shrunk by less as well at a shrinkage of about 10% over the two year period, which is still quite terrible but not nearly as bad as what you are saying. https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/ei.html

As for deflation, yes, there is deflation and this is a reason for them to be quite concerned.

Latvia had a shrink of about 21.5%.

The thing that makes me wonder is that both of the economies you selected were ones that had growth rates that were not sustainable in the long-run before this recession though. Ireland had a 6% growth rate in 2007. Latvia had a 10% growth rate in 2007. If these countries are just abnormally variable at this stage in their economic development(for example very dependent upon FDI or some other factor), then this could account for a lot of the changes.

That being said the US debt increased by 2.9 trillion dollars, however, we have still had some economic decline losing 2.4% in 2009, and a relatively high unemployment rate at 9.4% in 2009. https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/us.html

Given that this is trillions of dollars and that the US economy is likely much more stable than the economies mentioned, I am still finding myself somewhat skeptical to the benefits of the stimulus. Especially given that in the past stimulus was not very effective in Japan despite massive spending. I certainly don't know how much we can really say about Keynesian stimulus, especially with a long-run perspective as debts do have to be paid so if we don't get bang for our buck then we should focus on another bang before spending another buck. Perhaps that is too skeptical though.

Because the American Right use it as a bogeyman and a by-word for communism.

Socialism has not led Sweden to Communist tyranny.

ruveyn

Yes ruveyn, go right ahead and dismiss the ongoing debate over the meanings of words that has previously been occurring.

There is a debate in Sweden regarding the government's forced sterilization programs.

I haven't heard anything about this.

There have been forced sterilization programs in a lot of countries, including the United States.

I must have missed it.

abortion?

Just a question of curiousity - do you believe in this yourself?

It's amazing if people are actually convinced that their regime should dictate their beliefs...
Countries change policies, you know. What value is socialism against? Consumerism?
It's sad enough that people fall for this trap, and think they have to fight because their government fights, and say it's always right, but do people actually prefer one economical system on another one, in the claim that "it's against our tradition"? What kind of logic is that? The country is supposed to help the people, not to be worshipped by them...


They thing I don't understand it sayings such as "now they make us pay taxes, where will it end"?

Well, I don't know. Perhaps they'll draft you to the military. Perhaps they will arrest you for using drugs without hurting anyone. Perhaps you will be beaten up by cops for no good reason. Perhaps they will tell you that you can drive a car, but can't drink a beer.
Oh, wait, that already happens in many countries, and they aren't socialist!

I'm not an American, but I'm sure many of your liberties are offended "even" without socialism. How come all those other rules are okay, but once there is a rule that actually helps other people, it's a danger to democracy?
Don't get me wrong, I prefer voluntary aid myself, but I still prefer it to other laws...

And how the hell does the health care reform make Obama like Hitler? All I heard were brilliant claims such as "they both promised change".