What kind of comment is this? Have eco-social market economies (i.e. like Austria's) done more damage to this world than hyper-capitalistic economies that define growth at any cost as their primary goal (i.e. like a cancer)?
All western economies are socialist nowadays. There doesn't exist any hyper-capitalistic economies. What hyper-capitalistic economies are you talking about?
Even America has become a socialist country. The current Republicans are doing their best (thankfully) to slowly roll this back, but it's a long, slow process.
As evidence that America has become a socialist country, you just need to look at the massive expansion of medicare/medicaid and social security.
Central Europe is far more socialist. They're legitimately becoming communist.
For example, in Germany, the socialist/left/green pretty dominate and control almost all power here. Democracy is one of the few last standing barricades to germany becoming a full-blown communist state.
Yet, even democracy is starting to fade here.
Besides Germany, most of europe is well grounded in democracy. Therefore, I wouldn't call most of european countries communist states.
However, once socialism reaches a certain point, societies start to fail, and economies start to stagnate or even go backwards. We are starting to witness this here in European. Stagnating or retreading economies. Germany's economy hasn't grown in years.
Socialism means society owns the means of production with the goal of having more equality. Obviously not the case in America.
Why is Medicare proof of the US being a socialist country and not the existence of e.g. the US Army? The former is a formal agreement of the majority to spend money on citizens' health, the latter a formal agreement to spend money on citizens' protection from invasion by a foreign country. Obviously everyone agrees an army is needed, so why not health care?
It looks like you're an American who has no idea what socialism even is and you had to look up on the internet. Let me break it down for you in a simple manner: Socialism = lots of social welfare
Therefore, the continual dramatic expansion of Social Welfare (especially for the old) means america has become a shitty social state.
Actually I was born and lived the first years of my life in a communist country. America I have visited once for about a week.
Why is spending money on people's health social welfare, and spending money on their safety not social welfare, whether it's financing the army, police, fire department? Should it not be the responsibility of each individual to protect their life, family, home etc. from danger? Why should these dangers and the protection from them be SOCIALIZED? I for one am perfectly capable of protecting my property of fire, if someone is not, well it's their problem.
You seem to be very lost, @locallost. Great name. Certain services are obviously best done from a collective, society standpoint. You wouldn't be able to protect your property from certain wild fires, like what happened California. Nor protect yourself from an invasion from another country. Nor break up a criminal gangster mob that attacks the people.
Alright. I'm glad you adjusted your viewpoint from the initial "socialism is destroying the world" to "socialism is the best thing for some things". And they say people are much too polarized to have nuance in their views. Thank you for the nice discussion, which also gives me hope for the world. Be well, fellow partial socialist.
> All western economies are socialist nowadays. There doesn't exist any hyper-capitalistic economies. What hyper-capitalistic economies are you talking about?
What? How are any of "western economies" socialist AT ALL??
Do the workers on "all western economies" own the means of production in any way, shape, or form?
You sound like an ignorant american. Germany prides itself on being a socialist state. It's even anchored in their constitution (Article 20): "Germany is a democratic and socialist state."
Lots of other european countries are similar in this regard to Germany. The word socialism is well integrated in almost all european countries except for the english speaking ones. Most European countries consider themselves to be socialist states.
> Do the workers on "all western economies" own the means of production in any way, shape, or form?
You're drawing from some sort of book definition, like an ignorant american. You don't understand what "socialism" means.
Its not destroying it, just making it less efficient, not driving people and companies to deliver their best (but often at a big personal mental & physical cost).
In ideal world you have it all, thats what Star Trek and similar utopias were based on. In reality, the more you push to the left, the worse system gets since it always fails on the same premise - it expects ideal human beings, rather than greedy selfish real people(TM) with their own priorities that may diverge from common good.
I've seen the mix of socialism and communism dictatorship in my home country (so a vastly different concept than you describe even if spiritually in same direction), it destroyed the spirit and work ethics of entire nation so deeply that even 2 generations after it all collapsed its not back in any way, and maybe never will be (to detriment of entire nation).
While capitalism doesn't care, it pushes everybody to their max, for better or worse, weak or unlucky are allowed to fail all the way to the bottom and all the glory to the best and only the best.
It's a tough job and disappointment is nigh inevitable, but best of luck to him.
Time will tell if this is truly the "cap" of his ascent though. For the next few years sure, but he is young, as the article says.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45818421
[flagged]
What kind of comment is this? Have eco-social market economies (i.e. like Austria's) done more damage to this world than hyper-capitalistic economies that define growth at any cost as their primary goal (i.e. like a cancer)?
All western economies are socialist nowadays. There doesn't exist any hyper-capitalistic economies. What hyper-capitalistic economies are you talking about?
Even America has become a socialist country. The current Republicans are doing their best (thankfully) to slowly roll this back, but it's a long, slow process.
As evidence that America has become a socialist country, you just need to look at the massive expansion of medicare/medicaid and social security.
Here is a great place to start (Scroll down to the table called "Historical Social Security Tax Rates" and see how the numbers have just exploded): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States...
If America has a socialist economy, Central Europe must be full-scale marxist-communist in your eyes.
Central Europe is far more socialist. They're legitimately becoming communist.
For example, in Germany, the socialist/left/green pretty dominate and control almost all power here. Democracy is one of the few last standing barricades to germany becoming a full-blown communist state.
Yet, even democracy is starting to fade here.
Besides Germany, most of europe is well grounded in democracy. Therefore, I wouldn't call most of european countries communist states.
However, once socialism reaches a certain point, societies start to fail, and economies start to stagnate or even go backwards. We are starting to witness this here in European. Stagnating or retreading economies. Germany's economy hasn't grown in years.
Socialism means society owns the means of production with the goal of having more equality. Obviously not the case in America.
Why is Medicare proof of the US being a socialist country and not the existence of e.g. the US Army? The former is a formal agreement of the majority to spend money on citizens' health, the latter a formal agreement to spend money on citizens' protection from invasion by a foreign country. Obviously everyone agrees an army is needed, so why not health care?
It looks like you're an American who has no idea what socialism even is and you had to look up on the internet. Let me break it down for you in a simple manner: Socialism = lots of social welfare
Therefore, the continual dramatic expansion of Social Welfare (especially for the old) means america has become a shitty social state.
Actually I was born and lived the first years of my life in a communist country. America I have visited once for about a week.
Why is spending money on people's health social welfare, and spending money on their safety not social welfare, whether it's financing the army, police, fire department? Should it not be the responsibility of each individual to protect their life, family, home etc. from danger? Why should these dangers and the protection from them be SOCIALIZED? I for one am perfectly capable of protecting my property of fire, if someone is not, well it's their problem.
You seem to be very lost, @locallost. Great name. Certain services are obviously best done from a collective, society standpoint. You wouldn't be able to protect your property from certain wild fires, like what happened California. Nor protect yourself from an invasion from another country. Nor break up a criminal gangster mob that attacks the people.
So basically socialism works best for some things. Ok, thanks.
Yeah, exactly. You're not so lost after all ;)
Alright. I'm glad you adjusted your viewpoint from the initial "socialism is destroying the world" to "socialism is the best thing for some things". And they say people are much too polarized to have nuance in their views. Thank you for the nice discussion, which also gives me hope for the world. Be well, fellow partial socialist.
[dead]
> All western economies are socialist nowadays. There doesn't exist any hyper-capitalistic economies. What hyper-capitalistic economies are you talking about?
What? How are any of "western economies" socialist AT ALL??
Do the workers on "all western economies" own the means of production in any way, shape, or form?
Socialism = lots of social welfare
You sound like an ignorant american. Germany prides itself on being a socialist state. It's even anchored in their constitution (Article 20): "Germany is a democratic and socialist state."
Lots of other european countries are similar in this regard to Germany. The word socialism is well integrated in almost all european countries except for the english speaking ones. Most European countries consider themselves to be socialist states.
> Do the workers on "all western economies" own the means of production in any way, shape, or form?
You're drawing from some sort of book definition, like an ignorant american. You don't understand what "socialism" means.
[dead]
Its not destroying it, just making it less efficient, not driving people and companies to deliver their best (but often at a big personal mental & physical cost).
In ideal world you have it all, thats what Star Trek and similar utopias were based on. In reality, the more you push to the left, the worse system gets since it always fails on the same premise - it expects ideal human beings, rather than greedy selfish real people(TM) with their own priorities that may diverge from common good.
I've seen the mix of socialism and communism dictatorship in my home country (so a vastly different concept than you describe even if spiritually in same direction), it destroyed the spirit and work ethics of entire nation so deeply that even 2 generations after it all collapsed its not back in any way, and maybe never will be (to detriment of entire nation).
While capitalism doesn't care, it pushes everybody to their max, for better or worse, weak or unlucky are allowed to fail all the way to the bottom and all the glory to the best and only the best.
Yes, you are right, except at some point countries will start to fail as well. That hasn't happened yet, but it will start to soon (my prediction).
Great comment, by the way. What country are you from?
[flagged]
NYC Ashura next year will be huge.