Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Parliament XXIV political tests Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Again not proving anything on socialist terms but let's look at "the Miracle of Chile". You have to laugh that technically, the Chicago School did far more damage to Chile than the CIA ever did.
    I think the key point with using Chile as an example against socialism is that the Communist and Socialist parties are governing it, with the latter being the second-largest party (behind another leftist party) that also holds the presidency.

    In Latin America, countries on the left (Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay, and Brazil who is now on the right but people voted for the Socialists) generally do better than those on the right (Argentina, Mexico).
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    I think the key point with using Chile as an example against socialism is that the Communist and Socialist parties are governing it, with the latter being the second-largest party (behind another leftist party) that also holds the presidency.

    In Latin America, countries on the left (Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay, and Brazil who is now on the right but people voted for the Socialists) generally do better than those on the right (Argentina, Mexico).
    True, and there's also the fact that Cuba has some of the best social indicators on its continent - its child mortality rate is lower than that of the USA.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I guess the academics and socialists are wrong about what socialism is. It is incredible how today's socialists dismiss yesterdays socialists as not socialists because the alternative is to accept the failings of socialism. It is made even richer when you shout about the failings of capitalism, apparently socialism is only socialism when it conforms to your pure utopian view of socialism, but everything from what, the middle of the left rightwards is capitalist?
    That's just ignoring the point I've made. The textbook definition of socialism is "social ownership and workers' control of the means of production".
    "Yesterday's socialists" - I'm sorry, Trotskyists have been putting forward the theory of deformed workers states since 1937 and Marx himself would've agreed that it was not socialism.

    "Utopian view" m8 I'm not an anarchist.

    Socialism is only socialism when it conforms to the definition of socialism. We saw an example of socialism in the Paris Commune.

    Well given that the centre to the middle of the left is reformist, yes, it is capitalism.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    That's just ignoring the point I've made. The textbook definition of socialism is "social ownership and workers' control of the means of production".
    "Yesterday's socialists" - I'm sorry, Trotskyists have been putting forward the theory of deformed workers states since 1937 and Marx himself would've agreed that it was not socialism.

    "Utopian view" m8 I'm not an anarchist.

    Socialism is only socialism when it conforms to the definition of socialism. We saw an example of socialism in the Paris Commune.

    Well given that the centre to the middle of the left is reformist, yes, it is capitalism.
    Name me a non-anarchist form of 'pure' socialism then Des, surely if there's any sort of state that isn't social ownership of the means of production, ergo you're not a socialist as the only real socialists are anarchists.

    Checkmate.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Name me a non-anarchist form of 'pure' socialism then Des, surely if there's any sort of state that isn't social ownership of the means of production, ergo you're not a socialist as the only real socialists are anarchists.

    Checkmate.
    That makes no sense. Explain - why can there be no state under social ownership and control of the means of production?
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    That makes no sense. Explain - why can there be no state under social ownership and control of the means of production?
    A state takes taxes and administers services from those taxes, if everyone has an income tax then the state owns people's labour and by extension the means of production.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    A state takes taxes and administers services from those taxes, if everyone has an income tax then the state owns people's labour and by extension the means of production.
    That's not what the means of production is. If you actually read socialist literature, you would not make this naive mistake - the means of production are physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    That's not what the means of production is. If you actually read socialist literature, you would not make this naive mistake - the means of production are physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value.
    Surely infrastructural capital is part of the means of production, and therefore if the state is still taking taxes is still owns a portion of the means of the production.

    Again, you're not a real socialist by your own definition.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Surely infrastructural capital is part of the means of production, and therefore if the state is still taking taxes is still owns a portion of the means of the production.

    Again, you're not a real socialist by your own definition.
    Yes, a portion of the means of production. Not all the means of production.
    Nor does that make it the social ownership and control of the means of production - nationalisation does not equal socialism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Price control is socialism
    I'll take that as you accept defeat that on that point when exposed to the facts.

    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Price control is socialism but incompentency isn't restricted to it.
    So socialism=incompetency , completely agreed there.

    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    P The problem you pointed out with nationalization was not with nationalization per se but the execution of it. Mismanagement happens in all kinds of government and it's worse with nationalization only if it's not democratic.
    .
    So your admitting I was right and now saying "oh it wasn't executed correctly", that's a pathetic excuse and your using vague statements to justify your undefinable position.
    Even your weak argument can be used against you, seems that your agreeing with Ronald Regan here, the execution was poor therefore you are saying government is the problem.


    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    You do realize the Communist Party forms the coalition that is governing Chile right now, right?

    The Socialist Party is not only a part of that same coalition, but the second largest party in congress.

    In fact, the Chilean president is socialist.

    Or is this your way of conceding?
    Yes I accept these but I am using it as an example.
    It followed reforms set by Milton Friedman which saw its economy perform amazingly well.

    Milton Friedman’s visit in March 1975 forever changed the course of Chile’s history. After spending 6 days in Chile giving lectures at various think tanks, Friedman finally met up with General Pinochet.
    From the start, Friedman noticed that Pinochet was not savvy in economic matters. After meeting with Pinochet, Friedman wrote him a letter recommending a series of policy prescriptions that Chile should follow for it to get its economy back on track.
    Friedman did not beat around the bush in his letter to Pinochet. For Chile to get out of its crisis, Friedman believed that it must pursue free market policies —privatization of state-owned enterprises, removal of barriers to foreign investment, and opening up to free trade.
    ochet yielded for the most part and let the Chicago School disciples do their work. In April 1975, El Plan de Recuperación Económica (The Economic Recovery Plan) was put in place. Soon Chile curbed its inflation, opened up its markets, privatized state-owned industries, and let the private sector correct itself. By the 1980s, Chile was experiencing the largest economic boom in its history.

    From 1810 to 1983, Chile experienced a measly 0.9% per capita GDP growth rate. Thanks to the free-market reforms, Chile experienced a sustained growth rate of 4.3% from 1983 and onwards. Even under the administration of numerous Center-Left governments during the 90s up until 2010, the foundation of Chile’s free market system was left relatively untouched.



    Actually in 2014 it was still rated the 7th most free economy in the world according to the economic index of freedom
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
    Also if you look at most of the countries in the top 10 , they are all economically booming/doing well.
    The likes of Singapore,Hong Kong, Switzerland.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    fleky6910 Fyi, I - and probably pretty much everyone else - can tell when you've copied and pasted something because those are the sections of your posts with consistently accurate spelling and grammar.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    fleky6910 Fyi, I - and probably pretty much everyone else - can tell when you've copied and pasted something because those are the sections of your posts with consistently accurate spelling and grammar.
    I have copied and pasted parts of an article.
    They are still valid points as I am illustrating points, des does this all the time( from past debates)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Surely infrastructural capital is part of the means of production, and therefore if the state is still taking taxes is still owns a portion of the means of the production.

    Again, you're not a real socialist by your own definition.
    :rofl::rofl::rofl:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    I have copied and pasted parts of an article.
    They are still valid points as I am illustrating points, des does this all the time( from past debates)
    I'd be surprised if Des didn't use quotations to illustrate his ideas rather than taking extensive fully formed arguments as a substitute for individual thinking.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I'd be surprised if Des didn't use quotations to illustrate his ideas rather than taking extensive fully formed arguments as a substitute for individual thinking.
    He highlights them in bold, I have put the key points in bold , would you like me to use quote marks next time?
    I shall go edit with quote marks if that pleases you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I'd be surprised if Des didn't use quotations to illustrate his ideas rather than taking extensive fully formed arguments as a substitute for individual thinking.
    What I copied and pasted was just fact and what actually happened, its not substituting for any thinking ,
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    He highlights them in bold, I have put the key points in bold , would you like me to use quote marks next time?
    I shall go edit with quote marks if that pleases you.
    It wouldn't make you look like you knew what you were talking about, but if you think it would then you're free to.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It wouldn't make you look like you knew what you were talking about, but if you think it would then you're free to.
    I am copying and pasting fact , would you like me to type it out with poor grammar.
    What I copied and pasted basically says Friedman went there and things got better.
    I don't see the issue.
    All your going it "you copy and paste" instead of dismantling the points themselves
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    fleky6910 Fyi, I - and probably pretty much everyone else - can tell when you've copied and pasted something because those are the sections of your posts with consistently accurate spelling and grammar.
    😂😂😂
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    If you're going to compare it to a feudal society, of course it did.



    While it is relatively easier to deal with unfairness for people with different races or genders, it is much harder to deal with social class since "one can never entirely extract people from their ancestry and upbringing."
    As a result, efforts to bring fairness by equal opportunity are stymied by the difficulty of people having differing starting points at the beginning of the socio-economic competition. A person born into an upper-middle-class family will have greater advantages by the mere fact of birth than a person born into poverty.



    Yes because Venezuela is clearly socialist. Oh wait, wait, no, no it isn't.

    1. It relies on the export of oil through the global capitalist market.
    2. Nationalisation doesn't equal socialisation.
    3. The majority of its poor performance under global capitalism is due to its currency policy, a typically non-socialist policy.



    Again not proving anything on socialist terms but let's look at "the Miracle of Chile". You have to laugh that technically, the Chicago School did far more damage to Chile than the CIA ever did.
    Every capitalist sucess is a 'miracle' or an 'exception' to you , its quite farcical.
    You claim nothing is real socialism, I am not going to repeat the points and the debate jammy and Connor have made.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 3, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.