Successful Communist countries.

Jan 2012
405
South Midlands in Britain
Isn't it curious that people in socialist countries risk everything, including death to come to capitalist countries (particularly my country)? That speaks volumes.
We have to build walls to halt the masses from flooding into the United States and overwhelming us. Socialist countries, run by communists, have to build walls or shoot to kill their people to prevent them from leaving!
I note that you preface this remark with my post that denies that a socialist state can even exist.

There are no socialist countries as a socialist state is a contradiction in terms.

There are many states that declare themselves to be socialist but they are all liars.

You cannot run any government on an ideology. To rule successfully requires pragmatism not dogma. This applies to both right-wing and left-wing ideologies.
 
Oct 2014
1,215
California
Sure, as an example, the United States is a republic (ruled by laws) and not a democracy (ruled by the mob). However, we elect representatives (democratically) to make laws. So, we are a 'democratic representative federal republic' (isn't that a mouthful!?).
 
Mar 2019
278
Kansas
Sure, as an example, the United States is a republic (ruled by laws) and not a democracy (ruled by the mob). However, we elect representatives (democratically) to make laws. So, we are a 'democratic representative federal republic' (isn't that a mouthful!?).
Australia **Hold my beer**

The Commonwealth of Australia is described as a Federal Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy :)
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,952
San Antonio, Tx
We had a thread recently about black Americans who were invited to relocate to the Soviet Union at the depth of the Great Depression. The article that was being discussed could only name two people who stayed long-term. One of those two, as an old man in the 1970's, was refused the right to leave the country and visit America:

In Russia, early African American migrants found the good life
I had read about this. Quite poignant really...
 
Likes: Futurist
Dec 2018
49
Cheyenne
The World Economy Is A Pyramid Scheme, Steven Chu Says

Jeff McMahonContributor

Green Tech

From Chicago, I write about green technology, energy, environment.

Steven Chu, former U.S. Secretary of Energy, 1997 Nobel Prize winner in physics, and the new president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. (AP Photo/Tsering Topgyal)

The world economy is based on ever-increasing population, said Nobel laureate Steven Chu, a scheme that economists don’t talk about and that governments won’t face, a scheme that makes sustainability impossible and that is likely to eventually fail.

“The world needs a new model of how to generate a rising standard of living that’s not dependent on a pyramid scheme,” Chu said at the University of Chicago.

Chu didn’t specify what that new model would look like, but he offered a solution to the population growth the current one relies on.

“Increased economic prosperity and all economic models supported by governments and global competitors are based on having more young people, workers, than older people,” Chu said. “Two schemes come to mind. One is the pyramid scheme. The other is the Ponzi scheme. I’m not going to explain them both to you, you can look it up. But it’s based on growth, in various forms.”

For example, healthy young workers pay the health care costs for aging workers and retirees, the former energy secretary said, a scheme that requires increasing numbers of young workers. And economic growth requires more and more people to buy more and more stuff, with dire environmental consequences.

There are at least two problems with that:

“Depending on a pyramid scheme or a Ponzi scheme, there’s no such thing as sustainability,” Chu said.As standards of living increase, population growth declines. So if the economy succeeds in raising standards of living, it undermines itself.

“The economists know this, but they don’t really talk about it in the open, and there’s no real discussion in government,” Chu said. “Every government says you have to have an increase in population, whether you do it through immigrants or the home population. So, this is a problem.”

China has replaced its one-child policy with incentives for parents to have two children, Chu noted as an example, and France offers a prize, the Médaille de la Famille Française, to mothers of large families. Incentives like these will not help the world achieve sustainability, he said.

Chu, the man who solved the Gulf Oil spill with a doodle on a napkin, then offered two painless solutions to population growth:

“Education of women and wealth creation. Across all cultures. You go negative. You go negative birth.

“In many countries around the world, developed countries, Japan, Spain Italy, we’re talking about 1.3 (children per couple), 1.2 going below 1, where 2 is steady state.”

So Chu expects these effects of rising living standards to eventually offset the growth of human population. That will help the environment, he said, but it will also require a new kind of economy.

Chu’s visit to the University of Chicago was sponsored by the Energy Policy Institute of Chicago (for whom I sometimes host podcasts) and the Institute of Molecular Engineering.

This is the fourth of four stories about Steven Chu’s views of climate change and its potential solutions. Read more:

Meat And Agriculture Are Worse For The Climate Than Power Generation

Get Ready For 1.5¢ Renewable Electricity, Which Could Unleash Hydrogen Economy

Recent Carbon Emissions Will Affect The Atmosphere For 10,000 Years

By Jeff McMahon, based in Chicago. Follow Jeff McMahon on Facebook, Google Plus, Twitter, or email him here.

Jeff McMahonContributor

I've covered the energy and environment beat since 1985, when I discovered my college was discarding radioactive waste in a dumpster. That story ran in the Arizona…Read More




The World Economy Is A Pyramid Scheme, Steven Chu Says
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,497
Europix
You cannot run any government on an ideology. To rule successfully requires pragmatism not dogma. This applies to both right-wing and left-wing ideologies.
You confuse "ideology" and "dogma".

"Dogma" is how something is applied, interpreted, not the something itself. An ideology can be taken/applied dogmatically, or not.

An example of dogma is exactly what You said: "You cannot run any government on an ideology. To rule successfully requires pragmatism not dogma."

It's the trend of the last decades, that declared the failure of ideologies and politicians, proposing as solution the "technocratical" (non-ideological orientated specialists) governance.

It's even a bigger fail than classical ideological governance.

Because human society cannot be governed without an ideological base. Pragmatism alone doesn't function. Not to say that any ideology can be pragmatic in the same time: pragmatism doesn't exclude idealism and vice-versa.

Actually, all big achievements in human history (from individual to societal level) were possible because of the mixture of pragmatism and idealism.
 
Jan 2012
405
South Midlands in Britain
You confuse "ideology" and "dogma".

"Dogma" is how something is applied, interpreted, not the something itself. An ideology can be taken/applied dogmatically, or not.

An example of dogma is exactly what You said: "You cannot run any government on an ideology. To rule successfully requires pragmatism not dogma."

It's the trend of the last decades, that declared the failure of ideologies and politicians, proposing as solution the "technocratical" (non-ideological orientated specialists) governance.

It's even a bigger fail than classical ideological governance.

Because human society cannot be governed without an ideological base. Pragmatism alone doesn't function. Not to say that any ideology can be pragmatic in the same time: pragmatism doesn't exclude idealism and vice-versa.

Actually, all big achievements in human history (from individual to societal level) were possible because of the mixture of pragmatism and idealism.
If ideology is applied without critical evaluation as to ends and means, it soon becomes dogma. There is only one way to rule successfully and that is with what works. This in turn takes time and understanding which is antipathetic to what is called democracy these days. The argument that to rule is about people-management is a sound one. Any bunch of comrades/colleagues insisting that they know better than anyone else is the basis for poor governance.

My best experience with government was working with an enlightened technocratic bureaucracy (a regional development agency) when relocating a large production unit. Their ideology was that the move had to be successful for all concerned. I call that pragmatic.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,497
Europix
If ideology is applied without critical evaluation as to ends and means, it soon becomes dogma.
It's what I said: it isn't the ideology itself the dogma, but the approach taken. Greek crisis was dealt dogmatically, so it didn't matter that it was from a liberal angle (liberal ideology supposed to be a "good" one) and it was a disaster, as Chinese economy is dealt undogmatically, so it doesn't matter it comes from a socialist angle (supposed to be a bad one).

My best experience with government was working with an enlightened technocratic bureaucracy (a regional development agency) when relocating a large production unit. Their ideology was that the move had to be successful for all concerned. I call that pragmatic.
Yes, it is pragmatic. But it is ideological in the same time. "Successful for all" is a position, an ideological one.