We’re not down to a sneering session. What we are down to is the salient points, the truth of the matter. You imply that socialism will work. I grant you that in the Scandinavian countries elements of socialism have succeeded. But where countries have declared themselves Socialist Republics or the like, where they have instituted planned economies and forced institutions upon the people, they have failed, and failed big. That is what I understand to be Socialism, and social experimentation that leads to the relative impoverishment of people can hardly be held up as the shining example of success.
The Scandinavian countries have a mixed economy, much like we do. They differ in the degree to which the government is involved in the economy, but compared to an actual socialist country like NK, Cuba or the former USSR, they don’t really differ much from us at all. People own property, capital is raised privately for private businesses, and competition exists in the private sector. None of those exist in a system of State Socialism.
Ok, but doesn’t Venezuela have a mixed economy as well? Why are we lumping Venezuela in with NK or the USSR?
Well, yes, but the question says ‘current’.
Where it’s the state that runs things - directly or indirectly - rather than influences.
Oh, OK, so “socialism lite” can work, its only “state socialism” which everybody knows is doomed to failure, etc. Glad we’ve got that worked out.
When we progress to a just society, what form will it take? I don’t know, I rather doubt that I can know. It will be a lot different than what we have now, of that I can be certain. Fairly certain. If the liberals are right, and capitalism can be tinkered with, improved, fixed to a point where it actually fosters justice and equality, I have no issues. Its only that I think that an engine that runs on greed uses people for fuel.
Who is this “we” you are speaking of? It’s not you and it’s not me.
elucidator: As I’m sure you must know, we don’t have a universally agreed upon definition of what constitutes “justice”. I’m sure you and I would disagree on exactly what it means, and so we’d come up with different end results.
Precise definitions are not as important to me as they are to you. Our definitions are probably roughly approximate, and that’s close enough for rock 'n roll. If the end results are not satisfactory, I’ll bitch about it. No need to thank me, its what I do.
How do you determine if the end results are “satisfactory” without a precise definition? Against what standard do you determine success?
I doubt that our definitions would be close enough for government work. What would happen, is as usually the case, is that we’d end up arguing whether each individual policy resulted in more or less justice, but since we’d start with different standards, we’d come up with different results.
If one person is looking for equal opportunity and another is looking for equal outcome, they’re not going to necessarily agree on the best policy. My guess is that I’d focus more on the former, and you’d focus more on the latter. I’m not saying that to imply that I’m right and you’re wrong-- we just start with different postulates.
I’ve honestly never seen ANYTHING positive said about Chavez on this board except grudging things like “Well, he was elected,” and “The people of Venezuela do seem to want him in charge” and “He isn’t like Hitler” or “He isn’t as bad as the Bush administration makes him out to be.”
Who were these people on the SDMB championing him?
Without wanting to get into the whole debate, using per capita incomes is not a very good way to compare between socialism and capitalism. Basing these numbers on GDP or GNP is inherently biased towards a market system, because they value things based on the market place.
Take health care. If there is a private system, with a profit margin built in, then this contributes at multiple levels to national income. Provide exactly the same health care free at point of use, financed through taxation, and the contribution to GDP/GNP is lower. Similarly if under a market system I pay for child care, then GDP rises - if child care is provided free, the increase in national income is lower, and if I stay home and care for my own child there is no contribution to national income at all.
Paying the lawn service $40 a week to mow my lawn does not represent a society $40 a week better off than mowing it myself, especially if I spend the time that I would be mowing it sat on my ass watching basketball.
Everyone has a mixed economy, including the US. Our police/fire/prison systems are socialized, and our military used to be.
How do we determine which things make society better and which things make it worse? Is it better to have more freedom or more security? (And by security, here, I mean economic security-- not security in the sense that Bush would use the term. Same with freedom.)
I’m not trying to get into that, John, and I am also not trying to say “socialism better.” My sole point was that using a market valuation based structure to demonstrate the supposed superiority of a market based system over a non market based system is not without its problems.
Higher per capita income may not mean higher standard of living for the people. But more importantly, two societies in exactly the same standard of living situation can have markedly different per capita incomes based upon what goods and services are provided by the state.
BrainGlutton, mostly. There are some others, but they seem mostly to be fringe elements who will support any anti-American politician.
Regards,
Shodan
**BG **seemed to be a softy wrt Chavez early on, but I think he’s seen thru him a lot more lately. However, **BG **is still a self-described socialist, and I don’t think the Chavez “experiment” will affect that even if he goes down in flames, bringing Venezuela with him.
Never mind.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, of course, as you well know, we of the left are entirely immune to facts and reason, unlike such paragons of open-mindedness as you commonly find on the right.
(This is a test, if your Sarcas-o-meter does not register *at least * 7.3 millilucs it requires recalibration. Take to your nearest Radio Shack for service…)
One major problem I have state socialism is that it’s an all or nothing system. You can’t opt in or opt out on a voluntary basis. If we had a socialist state, you couldn’t form little “capitalist cooperatives” because private citizens don’t own the means of production, nor do they own the profits from businesses. In a capitalists economy, however, individuals are free to form “socialist cooperatives” to their hearts’ delight. Don’t like the corporate greed and big agriculture products at the local Safeway? No problema– just get together with a bunch of like minded people and form a cooperative for getting your groceries. Don’t like the greedy Detroit auto makers? No se preocupe– just form your own worker-owned auto plant and churn out cars to supply to your like minded citizens.
Now, I say “just” do these things, and I don’t mean to oversimplify the amount of work it would take to do so. But, the fact is it is possible to do such things in a capitalist society. Everyone in the US who wants a socialist economy could form their own socialist enterprises and could live under a mostly socialist system if they chose to do so. But you can’t have it the other way around. Socialism, by definition, must be maintained by force to the exclusion of other systems or it isn’t socialism.
Venezuela’s not going down in flames. It’s suffering high inflation, but nothing on an existential-threat level. Recent events show popular democracy is alive and well and the voters can throw the Chavistas out of Congress any time they want to; they don’t want to. Whatever else happens, short of a Pinochetan-style coup and crackdown, things after Chavez are never going to go back to just the way they were before Chavez took office. The people have gotten a taste of something different and they mostly like it.
As for Chavez himself, whom some on this board seem to regard as a minor Antichrist, he’s a fool in a lot of ways, but I’m convinced he’s a true believer in his Bolivarian Revolution – neither a self-interested kleptocrat nor a cynical opportunist latching on to whatever ideology is most popular. Of course, the same can be said of Lenin; but Chavez is not in Lenin’s nor Stalin’s position of unchallenged power and is not likely to be.
For my part, I don’t necessarily think of socialism as something that is to come after capitalism – the idea some modern leftists have derided as “the theology of the final goal”; rather, I think of a strong socialist political movement as something capitalism needs to keep it civilized. (America’s unique lack of one explains a great deal about our society, economy and foreign policy.) If we ever do build something that can be called a workable socialist society, we will have got there by very gradual steps, trial and error, and lessons learned from the law of unintended consequences. Venezuela might (or might not) get there, much sooner, the same way. It does appear the people don’t want to go too far too fast, but are satisfied with the general direction the country is going. Two steps forward, one step back, you know.