DescentBB

Wouldn't call North Korea a socialist utopia by any stretch. When I hear that phrase countries like Norway come to mind instead. Excess social benefits are a waste of money alright, but giving the example of an oppressive, dynasty based dictatorship in order to discredit socialism is not the right way to go about it IMO

he couldn't find any pics of someone fleeing Sweden or Norway.

The opposite of discrediting socialism with countries like NK is heaping praise on them by using examples like Norway, which only has all of that money to spread around because of its market economy.

sort of how socialism is supposed to work, maybe??? Folks who scream about 'socialism' think that Marx created some one-size fits all notion. He didn't. Neither did Adam Smith or other cornerstone figures in capitalism. Progress, evolution, these all are to be expected from human thinking......

Mmmm...perhaps Venezuela? Cuba?

Nightshade wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:19 pm Mmmm...perhaps Venezuela? Cuba?

Dictatorships, the both of them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/glo ... 2d4c0c4aaf

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

My point had nothing to do with “one size fits all” it has to do with socialism getting all of the credit for the “goodies” all the while sitting upon the foundation that is doing most of the hard work, and getting no credit.

Sort of like the typical science lab, where the egg heads at the top get all of the credit, while the hundreds of workers that get their hands dirty get nothing.

Spidey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:09 pmSort of like the typical science lab, where the egg heads at the top get all of the credit, while the hundreds of workers that get their hands dirty get nothing.

Apparently you not speaking from experience. I work in a lab and I am credited on a few scientific papers even though my contribution was infinitesimal. It's actually a little annoying. I get email invitations all the time from conference organizers asking me to give presentations and I'm always like, "no, no, I only did THIS part of the work, I'm not qualified to talk for 45 minutes on the subject..."

Oh, and speaking of socialism, no one ever says "which" socialism they are talking about. ThunderBunny is too dim-witted to know there are differences and everyone else here can't stop from taking the bait

vision wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:51 pmeveryone else here can't stop from taking the bait

Heh

BTW, the "many types of socialism" cannot exist without parasitism upon free market economies where it (socialism) is viewed (often by statist leftists) as "successful."

Is that like how free markets require parasitism upon government regulation? Thunderbunny, I've never seen anyone on this board advocate for the kind of socialism that you continue to so bravely attack over and over again. Everyone here is for a mixed economy of some kind or another.

I'd like to ask NS, what's so good about pure Capitalism, at least the version we're running with in the U.S. right now?

Spidey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:02 am The opposite of discrediting socialism with countries like NK is heaping praise on them by using examples like Norway, which only has all of that money to spread around because of its market economy.

Yeah, because in the modern world it's all a matter of proportion anyway. I really can never put a finger on whether those avid critics of socialism are bothered more by the centrally planned economy or the human rights abuses. If it's the latter, then well - that's got more to do with authoritarian execrise of power than with the way the economy is run. It just so happens that practically all the countries that have centrally planned economies also have authoritarian governments, but that doesn't mean that's the only way to run a totalitarian country. Take Eritrea for example - a Christian majority country in Africa that's also known for the least press freedom on the entire continent. So some people should really make up their minds, whether you're bothered by social benefits or by authoritarian governments, instead of throwing around the "socialism" umbrella term. Especially since a centrally planned economy can work short term, as shown by how the USSR experienced a huge economic leap during the first years of Stalin's policies (of course at a huge cost in human lives, but still).

But yeah, market economy's the only way to go, even countries like China were smart to realize this before it was too late. IMO any kind of ideocracy is a horrible mistake and a plight upon the citizens, be it a communist dictatorship or a religious state.

Xfing wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:12 pmBut yeah, market economy's the only way to go, even countries like China were smart to realize this before it was too late. IMO any kind of ideocracy is a horrible mistake and a plight upon the citizens, be it a communist dictatorship or a religious state.

But what China has is a essentially an economic hybrid called "State Capitalism". Is that even fair to have a large authoritarian government have control over every aspect of their country's economy when having to work with the rest of the world's free capitalist societies? A government's interest is not usually not the same as that of a free market group of corporations. Look at America. Most of the corporations are now multinational and don't give a damn about patriotism, nationalism and giving any favor to the U.S., but you can be assured that China's government DOES gives a damn about their own country's interests and will act accordingly.

Wikipedia wrote:State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes commercial economic activity, and where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises, or where there is otherwise a dominance of corporatized government agencies or of publicly listed corporations in which the state has controlling shares.

Yeah, kinda what Poland's current government has been moving towards. Along with extensive social benefits. While at the same time calling themselves "right wing", just because they're socially conservative and up the priests' asses.