Why doesn't socialism work?

That's not what our very own socialist rag (Salon) was saying about it back when things weren't going so much like the usually do under socialism (ie poorly):

Of course, no one is calling his results "indisputably positive" now, which is why they (meaning leftists) are also trying to rebrand it as something other than socialism.

 

that's only because CCCP had to fend off the West attack in order to survive.

if there was no West menace & sabotage, then things would be different completely.

 

So.. if the strengths of capitalism had not exploited the weaknesses of socialism, socialism would have survived.
This goes a long way to explain why socialists hate capitalism, eh?

 

China is a military dictatorship. The leadership figured out collective ownership doesn't work and unleashed capitalism in a good part of the economy.

 

that is what the myth says.

i for one, however, was born and living in CCCP, but no memories of toilet paper shortage whatsoever.

we should have clarified from now on: we talk Socialism as is, or as perceived to be?

 

Uh huh.

 

My curiosity is piqued. Do you recall shortages of anything at any point during your time living in the CCCP? Or did the break-up of the USSR have nothing at all to do with economic difficulties it ran into?

 

Both of which are a big part of socialism - along with regulations.

 

Is that why the Republican Establishment loves socialism so much ?

 

that's altogether a different matter. CCCP was too relaxed?

yes it was, to be honest, and this is what has done the whole thing in.

 

No fan of socialism, but the pre-Civil War American South used a lot of force to enslave blacks.

 

What West attack? Where? When? Was it a West attack that forced Stalin to greatly build up the USSR's military, confiscate individual farm land, and starve the Ukrainians?

 

the only shortage i recall was import goods like jeans etc, but this doesn't mean we Soviets walked naked prior that, of course.

nothing to do with it, for sure, because countries do not destroy because of economics, otherwise there would be West no more after the Great Depression.

 

No one here has yet to trash Medicare or SS.

This thread is really supposed to be about the inability of central planners in a non capitalist society to satisfy consumer needs. I guess I am also asking why "the workers" are not rising up and displacing capitalism with something else. That one I have an answer to.

I am no fan of unbridled capitalism in an anarchist state, and I worry that even the form we have now is destroying local culture, the environment, our mental health, and small business.

 

Really? What do you think caused the USSR to fall apart?

 

coming in late but to the OP

No singular system works best.

The best options are ones that take the best of each and implement them together.

The Magna Carta, and it's enshrinement of property rights is the basis of democracy. Capitalism as a managed market economic system is the most efficient way to divert resources to their most necessary part of the market.

Unfortunately, Capitalism is sociopathic and has no empathy for humanity, which is fine.

Socialism is the part of Govt that sees the people as the bottom line, whereas capitalism sees money as the bottom line. Those things aren't always in alignment, but without the people, you have no market.

Therefore, taking the same idea of Insurance (where the many premiums pay for the fewer claims), you utilize the direct and indirect profits from said capitalistic market to fund social programs and the things necessary to take care of the bottom line of people.

Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism. Combine these three things and you have the best, most efficient structure possible (that I know of thus far).

 

The median real wage for full-time workers has increased just 7.5% in 41 years. Older workers with fewer up-to-date skills have seen their wages drop. Real output per capital has pretty much doubled.

What would you suggest?

Voters put in Obama to get health care and Trump to get them a decent job. They're not happy about their share of the expanding economy. We have strong attacks on the system from the left (Sanders, Warren) and the right (Trump).

 

As I noted, ideologues spout their abstract dogma, promoting or denigrating one political "ism" or another.

In the real world, a pragmatic approach that integrates capitalistic and socialistic aspects has repeatedly proven to be the most successful approach.

Medicare has proved to be very popular, yet consider the ideological hysteria it had to overcome:

Ronald Reagan: “f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961]

George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare in 1964 as “socialized medicine.” [1964]

Barry Goldwater: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.” [1964]

Bob Dole: In 1996, while running for the Presidency, Dole openly bragged that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” [1965]
​

 

China's growth in the last 40 years was far more dramatic, but no matter.

So, you figure it was okay for Republicans to mindlessly apply the ideology of personal greed to the economic train wreck they caused and nearly destroy public support for the free enterprise system?

We have a lot of people on the right who would run the same action today and the left at the ready with the same response.

 

OK. So you see the problem as not one of the middle class "struggling" but more that they want a bigger piece of the pie.

Trump's solution is to increase worker's bargaining power by restricting competition from illegal immigrants and foreign workers (throug tariffs).

What is wrong with this solution? It seems better, to me, than taxing the rich for the government to redistribute to workers. It cuts out the middleman and empowers workers directly.

Do you have a different suggestion?

 

Too bad you don't know how the economic system works.

 

Yeah.. we'd be standing in line for TP and looking at bare grocery store shelves.

 

They usually go together, like peanut butter jelly.

 

No, many are struggling with a lower real wage. As I wrote above, "Older workers with fewer up-to-date skills have seen their wages drop." Uncertainty about even having work with jobs disappearing as skill sets are quickly outdated, retraining longer than in the past, and health care tied to work or otherwise uncertain.

Have you noticed most of the angry middle are interested in results, not process. They want a decent place to live, food on the table, and education and health care for the kids. All the talk from the right about "earning it" or doing without means nothing to them when they can't afford medical care for their children or spouse. Deliver a chance to earn what they want or they'll move on. Obama gave them health care, but thought he could put them on hold" while he was saving the planet, and helping "communities" (minorities, women, LGBTQ, etc.).

You can start with it doesn't work. Illegal immigrants make industry more competitive with their cheap labor; they aren't just a competitor for work. Preventing illegals from working here may help workers, but we'll lose some of our standard-of-living.

Tariffs won't work because we have to earn foreign exchange to buy resources we don't have here. The days of self-sufficiency ended after WW2. Besides, we traded $2 per hour factory jobs for higher paying service sector work--why would we want to go back?

Part of the solution is to improve economic output by increasing, public and private, R&D, spending on infrastructure, and worker training. Longer term, we should fix public education. Another part of the solution is to improve worker bargaining power at the same time we encourage them to save and invest.

See above. I want to do something that will work.

 

No, they don't. See Canada whose workers are now better off than ours (the median wage is higher there).