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

Socialism has never worked in any country and at any time in history Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Well I'm open minded to the government not being involved with things, obviously - but surely for there to be a real value of currency it needs to be controlled universally, and you can't really trust the private sector to not just print out tonnes of it? But persuade me, if you know more about it than I do ...
    wat.

    Ok, private currencies have to be commodity backed otherwise the public will not use them. Why would you use a currency that isn't backed by anything? You want your currency to be backed by gold, or another commodity currency, or whatever. Even now, tons of people (even one of my history teachers) still believe the Pound is exchangeable for a quantity of Gold.

    Secondly, the inflation of a private currency would mean people would stop using it. This is analogous to a private firm doing the exact opposite of what is going to attract it more customers. Of course, some firms do do this, but not in so obvious ways. You think about McDonalds: if they said "6 Chicken McNugget pieces" but then only actually gave you 1, and this became standard operating practice across all McDonalds... well, people would stop buying Chicken McNuggets very fast.

    I don't understand how you can be a Libertarian but think that a private company would do something on purpose that directly harms their own interests.

    Lastly, a commodity currency cannot be inflated by its proprietor because the the quantity of currency in circulation is tied to the market price of the item. For example, when we went back onto the Gold Standard in 1928, 1 Pound Sterling was worth $4.86 of gold (This number was actually too high but that's not the point of this demonstration.) This means that the quantity of gold you could receive in terms of weight was fixed in terms of price. If $4.86 was one day worth 10 grams of Gold and the next, 5 grams of Gold, then yes there has been inflation. But this is market inflation ( and also deflation ) because it's driven by the price of the commodity, and the quantity of the commodity produced, not just the arbitrary will of bureaucrats in a central bank.

    Furthermore, existing private commodity currencies like the Liberty Dollar have a high enough value to exist in physical coins. The Liberty Dollar circulates actual silver coins, which means that it can't be inflated like a paper currency can. Why is paper currency (in the West) a modern invention? Because previously, we used actual physical rare metals as currency and their value was high enough that they could be carried around and not be too heavy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    And how'd you work that one out?
    85% of Russia was made up of peasants and living conditions for peasants were treacherous.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nasri-diaby)
    It has the potential to work very well, if done correctly, certainly better than capitalism.
    Capitalism is better in practise.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    But I don't support what happened in the USA or the UK, and neither do any true free-market thinkers. It's a bit insulting to be compared to those cases when you've never endorsed it.

    Do you think anti-state socialism is desirable or practical? In fact, what is it you actually support?
    Hayek was prety chummy with Reagan and Thatcher, Friedman praised Thatcher, you don't think they are "true free market thinkers"?

    I believe anti-state socialism is both desirable and practical, but that a move towards it would take a very long time due to the radical changes required in the way society is structured. I'm also of the opinion that most revolutions tend to be counterproductive insofar as they often get filled by authoritarian forces. Therefore, what I support is a gradual limiting of state power and of its ability to grant favours to businesses, for illegitimately acquired wealth based on land to be removed from business control, and for people to operate on a decentralised, communal basis, with renumeration on a basis of need.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by PGtips92)
    Capitalism is better in practise.
    And ideologically: as its based around voluntary and consented trade rather than forcing people into certain behaviour for a non-existent greater good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    So why are people still stupid enough to believe in it?
    Someone might have already pointed this out, but it works in the Scandinavian countries right now. Of course that does not mean it will work in every country and any advancement of socialism in Britain would be in my opinion, undesirable. Scandanavia's success does however mean that you're statement is false OP.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Hayek was prety chummy with Reagan and Thatcher, Friedman praised Thatcher, you don't think they are "true free market thinkers"?
    This is because Friedman and Hayek were accepting of the fact that at that time, it was an important and necessary advancement and they believed that hopefully it would lead to more, and more equal, liberalisation. Sadly, it didn't really, and perhaps Hayek & Friedman were wrong.

    On the other hand, no politician ever liked Rothbard, or any of the present mebmers of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Apart from Ron Paul, and I guess Daniel Hannan. I can't think of any others though.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If a country still has private property, and the basis of productive economic action in that society stems from private property -- as is the case in Sweden, then I'm not sure you can call them Socialist.

    Denmark on the other hand is the worst failure of the Scandinavian countries. Here's a case study from a Danish professor:
    http://mises.org/story/1274
    http://mises.org/article.aspx?control=905
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    On the other hand, no politician ever liked Rothbard, or any of the present mebmers of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Apart from Ron Paul, and I guess Daniel Hannan. I can't think of any others though.
    That's because Rothbard was a nutjob. Remember they do/did like Nozick, who's near as dammit an anarchist.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    That's because Rothbard was a nutjob. Remember they do/did like Nozick, who's near as dammit an anarchist.
    lol

    "Nobody has supported Chomsky"

    "That's because Chomsky is a nutjob."

    Logical argument = where?

    Also, Nozick has in recent years become less anarchistic, although he is a Lib.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    lol

    "Nobody has supported Chomsky"

    "That's because Chomsky is a nutjob."

    Logical argument = where?

    Also, Nozick has in recent years become less anarchistic, although he is a Lib.
    Nozick is dead, why are you using the present tense?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't really keep tabs on whether they're alive or not, tbh I started reading Anarchy State & Utopia but never got properly into it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    lol

    "Nobody has supported Chomsky"

    "That's because Chomsky is a nutjob."
    Chomsky *is* a nutjob :p: The point was that Rothbard is just particularly nasty, aggressive, and banal, whereas Nozick makes some good points.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Chomsky *is* a nutjob :p: The point was that Rothbard is just particularly nasty, aggressive, and banal, whereas Nozick makes some good points.
    I'm not a fantastic fan of Rothbard (Although he has written good books on money) but I'm not sure how you can claim he's nasty or aggressive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    That's because Rothbard was a nutjob. Remember they do/did like Nozick, who's near as dammit an anarchist.
    Nozick did, in fairness, refuse to have anything to do with Reaganism, even if some elements praised his work.

    Ayn Rand on the other hand pretty much led a cult of these nutters (Alan Greenspan anyone?)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    lol, Ayn Rand

    RANDROIIIIIIIDS
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PGtips92)
    Ok it was foolish for me to talk about wages.

    But read this:
    In the 1950s, Cuba's economic development was on the top of Latin America and advanced even by European standards.[4][5][6][7][8][9] The economy has deteriorated, and incomes have fallen dramatically behind European countries. Starvation was observed after the loss of Soviet subsidies. Shortages and queues are rife. Wages are 17-30 U.S. dollars per month on top of overcrowded housing (three quarters built before 1957)[10] and some subsidized food.[11][12] Paramount issues have been state salaries failing to meet personal needs under the state rationing system chronically plagued with shortages. As the variety and quantity of available rationed goods declined, Cubans increasingly turned to the black market to obtain basic food, clothing, household, and health amenities. The informal sector is characterized by what many Cubans call sociolismo. Corruption is common.[13] Preferential treatment exists for those who are members of the Communist Party or who hold positions of power within the government.[14] Access to transportation, work, housing, university education and better health care are a function of status within the government or the Communist Party.[15]
    Wikipedia, 2nd paragraph.

    And Cuba is touted as the best example of a Socialist country.. Give me capitalism any day.

    Never really argued that Cuba were a good example.

    However, yes socialism is easily open to corruption, it works perfectly on theory that no-one will take a bigger slice than anyone else.

    It's a good idea, I wonder if it can ever be done perfectly though...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rizzletastic)
    Never really argued that Cuba were a good example.

    However, yes socialism is easily open to corruption, it works perfectly on theory that no-one will take a bigger slice than anyone else.

    It's a good idea, I wonder if it can ever be done perfectly though...
    But is it?

    See Post 85 (I think).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PGtips92)
    But is it?

    See Post 85 (I think).
    OK that post mentions people being forced in someone in their life.

    However, you could say that someone born in a poor household in a capitalist world is being forced down a lower-class route despite the potential they may have because they do not have as good resources as others.

    I'm not saying it is better than capitalism, just saying that it is theoretically viable.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rizzletastic)
    OK that post mentions people being forced in someone in their life.

    However, you could say that someone born in a poor household in a capitalist world is being forced down a lower-class route despite the potential they may have because they do not have as good resources as others.

    I'm not saying it is better than capitalism, just saying that it is theoretically viable.
    :yikes: Rape!

    Seriously though, if you work hard.. 'n all that. Sure, they have it harder, but there's no force involved; "you WILL stay in the same social class as your parents". Even so, this isn't necessarily a problem of capitalism- social mobility can be improved by bringing back grammar schools for example.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.