Socialism - Countries that have tried it

[sprintcyclist]

1. China from 1949

2. Cambodia from 1975

3. Cuba since 1959

4. East Germany from 1949

5. Ethopia from 1974

6. North Korea - currently

7. Poland from 1945

8. Romania from 1947

9. USSR from 1922

10. Venezuela



https://www.forbes.com/pictures/eglg45h ... 1b68415544

[Mortdooley]

Don't the wannabes always say it was just never done properly in the past but we can do better. Equality of rewards regardless of effort. Personally I believe in social justice as in, I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn! What could be more fair than that?

[sprintcyclist]

Pretending that ' ... it was just never done properly in the past but we can do better. ............. '
Well, that in itself is a very bad flaw. If it was ' ....... never done properly in the past ........ ' whyever not ?

Why do you think you will succeed here everyone else in the past has failed ?
I am not being sarcastic.

[Nom De Plume]

Don't the wannabes always say it was just never done properly in the past but we can do better. Equality of rewards regardless of effort. Personally I believe in social justice as in, I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn! What could be more fair than that?

Awesome! No tax! I love it.

Just wondering though, how do roads, bridges and what not get built.
Oh and I’m guessing that you are OK with those ‘too big to fail’ banks, insurance companies etc failing?

[Nom De Plume]

Don't the wannabes always say it was just never done properly in the past but we can do better. Equality of rewards regardless of effort. Personally I believe in social justice as in, I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn! What could be more fair than that?

Awesome! No tax! I love it.

Just wondering though, how do roads, bridges and what not get built.
Oh and I’m guessing that you are OK with those ‘too big to fail’ banks, insurance companies etc failing?

Oh and, given that corporations receive more public funding than what is spent on welfare...are you going to just let those hungry corps starve?

[brian ross]

What I find interesting is that no one mentions that what is described as "communism" is in fact "state capitalism". When you work out what the difference is, then perhaps it is possible to talk, Sprint.

[Nom De Plume]

What I find interesting is that no one mentions that what is described as "communism" is in fact "state capitalism". When you work out what the difference is, then perhaps it is possible to talk, Sprint.

LOL.

[Neferti]

Personally I believe in social justice as in, I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn! What could be more fair than that?

Exactly.

[sprintcyclist]

What I find interesting is that no one mentions that what is described as "communism" is in fact "state capitalism". When you work out what the difference is, then perhaps it is possible to talk, Sprint.

LOL.

yeap, they could not get it right either.

[Bogan]

Brian Ross wrote

What I find interesting is that no one mentions that what is described as "communism" is in fact "state capitalism". When you work out what the difference is, then perhaps it is possible to talk, Sprint

Wrong (as usual) again, Brian.

Communism is another word for International Socialism. This is a form of totalitarianism which appeals to many people within the university educated class, and it's primary demographic stronghold is within the graduates of the public service. (e.g. the ABC, BBC) It is supposedly Internationalist in intent, but it can never achieve that because most people are nationalistic, either towards their country, their culture, or their ethnicity. As an economic model International Socialism is a complete failure. Having the State own all of means of production and distribution has never worked, and it will never work. National Socialism is another form of totalitarianism which appeals primarily to the upper middle class, and the ruling class (which may include the upper levels of clergy) . The hostility between these two forms of totalitarianism (communism and fascism) is essentially a class war between the university educated totalitarians and the upper middle and ruling class totalitarians.

International Socialism usually morphs into National Socialism sooner or later, because the International Socialist economic model is a total failure. Added to that, since International Socialism is totalitarian, it is only a matter of time before either the psychopaths (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao), or the ruling classes take control and they kill off the educated elitist dreamers. When that happens, the usually smarter ruling class totalitarians eventually adopts some degree of free market economics because they know it works a lot better than the ridiculous International Socialist model. e.g. China and Vietnam today.

On the whole, National Socialism is better for it's unhappy captive populations than Brian Ross's beloved International Socialism. It's economic model makes a lot more sense, although it does make them more formidable enemies of the democracies. (e.g. Nazi Germany, China today) It was once said that the USA was upset when the USSR and China adopted mostly free market economics. The yanks wanted the Russians and Chinese to stay Communist and keep stuffing everything up. However, National Socialists can have the capacity to almost bloodlessly transform into democracies when the ruling class sees an advantage in doing that. Examples would be South Korea, Chile, the Philippines, Spain, and Greece.

However, even International Socialism is a step up from Islam. In a way, it would have been better if the USA had not helped the Afghans in their fight against the USSR. Afghanistan ruled by socialist dreamers would have been better for the Afghans than being ruled by religious fruit loops who tried to turn all of Afghanistan back to a 6th Century caliphate.