How about when the government interferes so that the risk is so reduced (i.e., socialized) that there is little to no incentive to operate under practices that reduce risk?
I think it’s just as bad for government to be cozy with business as it is for government to be antagonistic to business.
All socialist leaders become evil tyrants? What about Clement Attlee?
That doesn’t make Walesa not a Socialist leader. Solidarity was very much a Socialist party, just an anti-authoritarian one.
http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2010/index2010_ranking.pdf (PDF)
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Equatorial-Guinea/economic-freedom
http://www.worldaudit.org/economicfreedom.htm
Just a theory that I’m throwing out, but it seems that capitalists value money, and it doesn’t matter what you look like or what you believe in, as long as you can help them make more, you can be their friend
Socialism values ideology more, so there are people that are basically fucked at birth because they belong to a certain group. Makes it harder to move up
These seem to all be conglomerate rankings including human rights, democratic values, and many other factors - not merely the level of state ownership vs. private ownership.
The comments re: Walesa lead me to believe that once again the differences between capitalism vs. central planning and authoritarianism vs. democracy are being confused in this thread. As a comment, one can be a socialist democracy or a capitalist authoritarian.
The basic question of the OP seems to be - if a tyrant were to come in to your country by force would you rather he nationalize the oil industry (for example) or claim it as his own and sell it to the highest bidder for his (and his friends) enlargement?
In the end I don’t really have an answer for the question - for me the differences between democracy and authoritarianism have a much larger impact on quality of life than the economic model. Economics can change (rapidly, even) while juntas tend to last, and only end violently.
You misspelled “pawn”, “serf”, “slave”, “peon”, “peasant”. Not that Marxists are much better, but European-style socialism at least acknowledges that someone other than the people with money are human.
But politics permeates our whole lives, it’s kind of hard to shut up about it. Under a right wing dictator, you cannot do anything to try to improve your work conditions: even a peaceful demonstration, let alone a strike, will be considered as “socialist agitation” and broken up by force by the army. Right wing authoritarianism is more about supporting the business class than respecting true free market principles.
Well I think the problem is that most authoritarian governments aren’t very free market. They may profess to be, and in the past many self proclaimed right wing dictators made a big show about how they were anticommunist, but the facts of the situations are that most authoritarian governments are going to interfere with the economy to the extent that the rulers and their supporters get the lions share of the wealth in the nation.
Yes, but : right-wing does not mean capitalism and vice-versa.
I still think the central theme here is about oil and who controls it. Does it (and its revenue) below to the state? Or to a corporation.
And from there, we ask who owns the land? Individual farmers, or a corporation.
When you look at Venezuela, Cuba, or Iraq, you had countries where foreign corporations controlled the wealth. A leftist revolution sought to empower the working class, and let them have access.
As far as Venezuela is concerned, I don’t see how a traditional capitalist approach would have left the country any better off. In fact, when you consider the recent BP oil spill, or the Tar Sands of Alberta, things could be much, much, worse.
The biggest problem with this thread is that there is no starting definition of “socialism” and “capitalism”.
Wow. I really like that post.
Well done.
I might also add that “good” capitalism - at least the kind that fosters innovation, rather than just playing catchup - requires the respect of property rights and the rule of law.
I think it would be pretty hard to be an autocratic, capitalist dictator for very long under those circumstances. The two seem to be at odds, at least to me.
Well, you see there’s the problem. If you are comparing non-tyrannical capitalism to tyrannical socialism, of course the capitalist system is better. The pro-capitalist side in this seems to want to define away tyrannical capitalists as not being “real capitalists”, while at the same time pretending that “socialism” is a synonym for “Communist dictatorship”. If such a biased set of definitions is accepted naturally capitalism is better; but then, socialism would be better if you defined “capitalism” as “mass chattel slavery” and “socialism” as “Canada”.
I think he and Bernie Sanders robbed a Jack in the Box once. So both are evil socialists in my book.
I think the problem is authoritarianism. There are tons of socialists in Europe (and a lesser degree US politics), and as long as they follow the constitution and have fair elections they don’t pose problems. The problems come from autocracy of all political leanings.
And again, I disagree with the OPs assertion that a right wing autocratic government won’t screw up public services, or that a socialist government will. That is pure opinion.
Do Americans have a completely different definition of the word “socialist” than the one I was raised with? I’m not trying to say mine is the “right one”, but it would certainly be helpful if the OP could specify what he means by socialism. Are we talking about socialist marxism? Socialist leninism? The socialist democratic principle?
And to respond to the Venezuelan example, Norway did that. Oil on Norwegian soil has been nationalized and it’s served us fairly well so far. And I’ve yet to notice any autocratic leanings in our PMs. (Hell, our second-to-last prime minister was a priest.) All in all I think the word nationalist fits the OP’s quoted descriptors better than socialist.
It amounts to “anything to the left of America, as it is right now.” Most of the world, basically.
Canada been acting cheeky lately, eh?
Yes.