Does socialism = power? You can’t have a “working” socialist program without some sort of abundance of resource. Even if you were to say be a king, give all the plebs food each day, but in return you tax peasants, The peasants would still have food or could get the food given to everyone each day. Is this also a sign of power? The fact the peasants have so many crops we can tax them enough to feed everyone? Is that prosperity?
Castro done good at socialist policies without much signs of prosperity.
Cuba is not doing that badly by the standards of the region, they’re #5 in Latin America (out of 22 countries).
I think so. Once a country obtains middle income status they usually start to implement programs like universal health care, a pension for the elderly, universal education, assistance to the poor and disabled, etc.
There really aren’t any high income countries w/o these programs (other than the US, which lacks universal health care but still has pension programs, aid programs and universal education).
Is there a reason you only mention the taxing of peasants and not, say, merchants, lords or magnates?
yes, it would be a sign of prosperity, given that all prosperous nations outside of the USA have it, well, at least in europe
I guess because the peasants grow the food, I’m just assuming there is plenty of food all year around and we feed the plebs with that food we collect. I wouldn’t go too deep into the matter of whos being taxed rather the fact some conservatives will argue the government has to steal from people to provide support for others. That’s where I was trying to get at.
Well, it turns out that agriculture has become sufficiently advanced that far more food can be produced than is necessary for survival. Not distributing it is wasteful.
So why not share the predicted food waste with all the low food intake countries? It seems quite reasonable to me, or maybe it’s a little too far fetched to expect that from whoever is controlling the food supply.
That’s not very patriotic of you, Mr. President. One of the most fundamental reasons that nations exist is to exercise beneficent sovereignty over their own economic well-being.
Well, I think, Mister President, that most historians would argue that the peasants were traditionally exploited and oppressed by The King.
Therefor, I would think, they would of been happy if they had been offered a method of working that was structured under socialist as opposed to feudalistic work practices.
Because capitalism is not about feeding people, but creating “profits”, and by destroying the surplus food you can drive up prices? And since it is based on ideology instead of common sense, destroying food while people starve to death isn’t a problem because… reasons.
Capitalism can be weird that way.
Some places destroy leftover food; other places give it away too food banks.
In pure abstract theory, the latter kinds of places are operating at a disadvantage relative to the former, because they’re competing against themselves, making food available to people who, otherwise, would have to buy from the market.
But what they gain in community good-will may be more valuable than the food they give away.
I’ve been in restaurants where they pour the last of the coffee down the drain…and restaurants where the clerk says, “Anybody want a free cuppa?” Both manage to stay in business.
Depends on your definition of socialism. Arguably for the workers to control the means of production there has to be a means of production in the first place.
That might depend on what you think of primitive communism, the idea that ancient hunter gatherers were proto-communists. The nature of man is one of the most contentious topics in the social sciences and political philosophy in particular so good luck with that. But it’s something to consider if you’re wondering about the distribution of scarce resources in a stateless society. HGs faced a lot of problems, but capital accumulation wasn’t one of them.
Traditionally the idea was that communism - a classless, moneyless, stateless society - would be the next step in social evolution from capitalism. So the richest, most advanced countries would go communist first. I’m not sure I understand the focus on the abundance of resources, though. That’s an aspect of civilization in general.
But the peasants don’t grow the food, giant agricultural corporations grow the food.
The proper measure of prosperity is how well-off the poorest members of society are. Any policies that improve the situation of the poor, then, are policies which improve prosperity. Socialism has been proven to do this. Capitalism might also do this (it certainly works better than, say, feudalism), but it has yet to be demonstrated to do it better than socialism, in the real world.
Capitalism is an economic system. Socialism is an economic and a political system. Sweden and the US are both capitalist countries. Cuba is a socialist country. In which countries are the poor better off? Which country has people literally risking their lives to get to one of the other countries?
But perhaps we need to define our term. I’m assuming we’re talking about the socialism of Karl Marx, not the “Democratic Socialism” of Bernie Sanders.
Because the rulers of “low food intake” countries will not allow food to be distributed to the starving masses. North Korea is probably the most glaring example of this. Any food aid sent to North Korea will probably be kept by Kim Jong Un to feed the army and his loyal cronies rather than to feed the general population.
[quote=“Chronos, post:16, topic:744689”]
The proper measure of prosperity is how well-off the poorest members of society are.QUOTE]
That’s certainly one plausible measure, though I think well being is a bit more complex and intangible factors can play into it too. By that measure, you would need a combination of an overall prosperous country with a minimal level of inequality. I’m not sure which historical comes closest, but the pre-1990 GDR (which had th 17th highest HDI overall in the world, and a Gini index of 0.17) might come closest.
By the way, is “socialism” being used here to mean “any system of taxation/entitlement” ?