What was needed to stop the 60s liberal revolution in its tracks?

Jan 2016
372
Ohio
#41
Capitalism NEEDS to be MIXED with Socialism to have a functioning and productive society.
Just exactly how much socialism are we talking here? Surely you aren't referring to Korea/Vietnam/Cuba?

I would assume you are talking about the likes of Switzerland that is a capitalist free market sprinkled with some socialism?

Id also like to argue that the most commonly referred "nordic" countries aren't as "socialist" as people believe them to be. Id also like to point out (let me re-find my sources) that these countries were financially stable and wealthy due to their free market economy BEFORE implementing any socialistic reforms.
 
Likes: Swamp Booger
Jan 2016
372
Ohio
#43
If socialism is given a free run, we all get poor. LOL.

Seriously though. Id much rather have 100% capitalism then 100% socialism any day. Atleast capitalism works. It creates wealth.

As Prof Peery wrote “The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.”

I am all for a good balance of both. A few socialistic reforms might be nice. However, we can't get to ahead of ourselves. Id much rather be far more Capitalist and Free-Market then Socialist any day.

Ive got an idea. Instead of pushing it under the rug, figure out why socialism has failed before in countries, try to revise it, then start introducing it.
 
Likes: Swamp Booger

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,527
USA
#44
Either way (Capitalism or Socialism), 80% of the people end up poor. But Capitalism creates wealth.

So the goal is to keep creating wealth with Capitalism, but also keep Socialism to share the wealth in a productive way. A combination of the healthy aspects of Capitalism and Socialism.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2009
3,416
San Diego
#45
Just exactly how much socialism are we talking here? Surely you aren't referring to Korea/Vietnam/Cuba?

I would assume you are talking about the likes of Switzerland that is a capitalist free market sprinkled with some socialism?

Id also like to argue that the most commonly referred "nordic" countries aren't as "socialist" as people believe them to be. Id also like to point out (let me re-find my sources) that these countries were financially stable and wealthy due to their free market economy BEFORE implementing any socialistic reforms.
Those are NOT actual socialist states- they are fascist despotisms.

and, No, I am not arguing for a socialist state- I am stating that the imbecility is to think that any ONE ideology is going to be effective in isolation.
We KNOW unregulated capitalism always leads wealth being concentrated until you are living in an aristocracy of ownership.

We KNOW that Socialism tends to stagnate without the incentive of personal gain.

Those are Ideologies. And Ideologies are a sorry excuse for not thinking.

We need a system based upon demonstrated effect. without the 'beliefs' getting in the way.

The US was MORE socialist from 1933 thru 1980- arguably the period of greatest economic growth in US history and which created the vital middle class and the dream of home ownership.


The function of government is to enhance the well being of ALL citizens- not just the rich.
And that is an inherently socialist function.

Our military- our sewer and water systems, our road networks are ALL socialist creations.
They can and do work hand in glove with private enterprise.

The Nordic countries, France, and even Canada have a good balance of socialism to hold the avarice of capitalism in check... although the rise of neo-conservatism and capitalist ideology there has also resulted in lowered tax burdens on the rich and rising income inequality.- they too are experimenting with UNDERFUNDING their governments and are suffering setbacks as a result.
 
Likes: Spartakus X
Jul 2016
8,190
USA
#46
If Capitalism is given a free run, 20% will end up rich, 80% will end up poor, with no middle class.
That makes no sense. Capitalism created the middle class. Literally, free market capitalistic entrepreneurs created the mercantile system, creating an entirely new class of people who previously didn't exist. Now your'e saying the only thing to save capitalists and the middle class of small business owners, managers, skilled workers, is to contain them with socialism, which is govt telling them what they can and cannot make, sell, buy, etc, through a centrally planned economy (the only one a govt can control). Seems kind of...wrong.
 
Jul 2016
8,190
USA
#47
Those are NOT actual socialist states- they are fascist despotisms.
Ahh, the No True Scotsman Fallacy. It was only a matter of time before someone played that card. So none of them are socialists. Even though they follow Socialist dogma to the letter (thanks Marx, Lenin, and Mao!) and call themselves Socialists. No, they're fascist despotism.

But wait. Socialism isn't a method of how a govt functions, its purely an economic and social ideology. And fascist and despotism are synonyms, they mean the govt has total control and rules without checks, and its completely free from being tied to any ideology. It can be monarchy, dictatorship, theocracy, oligarchy, etc.

Meanwhile, and this is the funniest part, the original and truest definition of socialism is a govt controlling the means of production. So that means govt having full and total control of the economy. Meaning govt controls all business, all manufacturing, all trade, all banking, all supply, all demand. Which means the govt doing so needs to be all powerful, it cannot control everything without being all powerful, all seeing, all controlling. How is such a govt not going to be fascist or despotic? Its impossible to be socialist without being so.

The US was MORE socialist from 1933 thru 1980- arguably the period of greatest economic growth in US history and which created the vital middle class and the dream of home ownership.
Are you seriously suggesting the Middle Class in America didn't exist until 1933 and the New Deal? That FDR was somehow responsible for home ownership? Or that the financial boom of the 1950s was due to socialist economic policies? Surely you jest!
 
Likes: TheMusicMan
Oct 2009
3,416
San Diego
#48
Ahh, the No True Scotsman Fallacy. It was only a matter of time before someone played that card. So none of them are socialists. Even though they follow Socialist dogma to the letter (thanks Marx, Lenin, and Mao!) and call themselves Socialists. No, they're fascist despotism.

But wait. Socialism isn't a method of how a govt functions, its purely an economic and social ideology. And fascist and despotism are synonyms, they mean the govt has total control and rules without checks, and its completely free from being tied to any ideology. It can be monarchy, dictatorship, theocracy, oligarchy, etc.

Meanwhile, and this is the funniest part, the original and truest definition of socialism is a govt controlling the means of production. So that means govt having full and total control of the economy. Meaning govt controls all business, all manufacturing, all trade, all banking, all supply, all demand. Which means the govt doing so needs to be all powerful, it cannot control everything without being all powerful, all seeing, all controlling. How is such a govt not going to be fascist or despotic? Its impossible to be socialist without being so.



Are you seriously suggesting the Middle Class in America didn't exist until 1933 and the New Deal? That FDR was somehow responsible for home ownership? Or that the financial boom of the 1950s was due to socialist economic policies? Surely you jest!
Its not a true scottsman fallacy.

A dictatorship can not qualify as a socialist state.

Are you silly enough to believe that what a nation CLAIMS to be is what it actually is?
The the People's democratic republic of Korea is a democratic republic?

That the national socialist party of Hitler was Socialist? If so, then why did they attack the Soviets?
 
Likes: Spartakus X

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,527
USA
#50
Can you expand on that? I can't see any evidence of that.
Because there is no Capitalism on a free run, at least in the Western world.
Capitalism is regulated by many aspects of Socialism, such as Medicare, Medicaid, income based taxation and so on.
 
Last edited: