Anyway, are there any non-capitalist countries left?
Cuba? Venezuela? North Korea? in all three countries, the poor are dirt poor.

Progress is capitalism with a safety net = social democracy.

Concentrated wealth at the top, high rate of poverty and a weak middle class.

Totally agreed. Though I see nothing wrong with discussing and implementing a different type of economy if it would work better. And maybe another one just might. At least, capitalism must be highly and tightly regulated to force it to work for the masses, otherwise.

and using it as a weapon against competitors.

Regulated capitalism can only work when no business or group of businesses is more powerful than the government.

That sounds simple but is tough to accomplish when business can offer so many financial and other inducements to elected officials and bureaucrats to make them violate that principle.

Poverty has always accompanied socialism too, see South America / Cuba for example

and Cuba impoverished?

Cuba has been able to trade with any country in the world except the U.S. Castro has lied to his people for 50 years claiming the U.S. is blockading the island. That is a lie. Valenzuela slid into a basket case all by itself. Socialist countries always have to have an outside enemy to blame their failures on.

There have been documented cases of the US strong-arming allies, like GB, from pursuing large scale corporate investments.

Cuba's biggest economic windfall, pre-embargo, was US tourism.

When the world's largest economy freezes you out, you're going to suffer.

But thanks for playing.

According to some in this thread, Cuba is unable to improve its poverty situation without help from the American capitalist.
yet capitalism is somehow inherently evil to the blame America first crowd

The doublethink is refined to a science.

1) The US exercised an economic and political embargo on Cuba to punish the Cubans for daring to nationalize US interests.

2) Venezuela, like every other South and Central American country, has been the subject of numerous US interventions, both covert and overt.

Google "Monroe Doctrine" and explain to me the legal justification for it.

It is a basket case because of a socialist dictatorship. When did we invade Venezuela?

As to Venezuela:



It's been over a decade since a U.S. sponsored coup temporarily overthrew Venezuela's democracy, and Washington is still plotting.

The United States has a long history of interfering in Venezuela.

Shortly after being returned to power by popular force in April 2002, then president Hugo Chavez quickly warned the United States was already planning its next move. Chavez had been ousted from office for just under two days in early April, in a coup carefully choreographed by Venezuela's business elite, renegade military elements and the United States.

By early October, 2002, Chavez announced Venezuelan authorities had already uncovered another coup plot. Two weeks later, Chavez narrowly escaped an assassination attempt. The attempt appeared to coincide with anti-government protests.

Then, as U.S. president George W. Bush entered his second term in 2005, Washington appeared to redouble its efforts to remove Chavez. A month after Bush was sworn in for a second time, Chavez said his government had uncovered another assassination plot. The plot was uncovered just weeks after then U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice described the Venezuelan leader as a “destabilizing force.” In September that year, Bush again lashed out at Venezuela, accusing the country of failing in its fight against the narcotics trade.

Another major coup plot was foiled in 2006, when Venezuelan authorities said they found evidence the U.S. embassy in Caracas had been secretly collecting military information. That same year, the Department of State began barring certain arms sales to Venezuela. This was the beginning of what would later become a key pillar of U.S. policy towards Caracas – sanctions.

In 2011, state oil company PDVSA was hit with U.S. sanctions, while in 2013 state arms manufacturer CAVIM was also sanctioned. More sanctions were imposed in late 2014 against Venezuelan government officials. Then in March 2015, U.S President Barack Obama issued an executive order imposing another round of sanctions, and describing Venezuela as an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States. This was the most controversial round of sanctions, and sparked widespread condemnation in the region. The Obama administration was eventually pressured into admitting Venezuela doesn't pose a threat to the United States, though the sanctions remained in place.

The evolution of economic pressure on Venezuela is perhaps the most striking example of the continuity of Venezuela policy between the Bush and Obama administrations. However, this overt aggression against Venezuela has likewise been accompanied by a continuous campaign of subversion, largely in the vein of U.S. activities in the lead-up to the 2002 coup.

Much of this took place through groups like USAID, the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI).

In a 2006 diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks, then U.S. ambassador William Brownfield said both USAID and OTI were playing central roles in a strategy to oust Chavez.

“This strategic objective represents the majority of USAID/OTI work in Venezuela,” Brownfield wrote at the time.

According to investigations by the U.S.-Venezuelan lawyer Eva Golinger, Between 2004 and the time of the cable's initial, secret publication in 2006, USAID spent close to US$15 million on operations in Venezuela. Much of this involved supporting around 300 so-called civil society groups – largely a collection of far right, anti-government groups. One prominent recipient of U.S. funding was Sumate, an anti-Chavez political group founded by right-wing firebrand Maria Machado. Machado was a signatory of the Carmona Decree – the political manifesto of the short-lived 2002 coup government. The fact that one of the key recipients of U.S. aid was a coup plotter has led many in Venezuela to accuse USAID of being opposed to democracy.

The latest information available suggests USAID's annual budget for Venezuela was over US$5 million, despite the fact that foreign funding of political activities was banned in Venezuela in 2010. The banning was condemned by the U.S. Department of State, despite the fact the United States has a similar law against funding of political campaigns.

The key factor making such a move even more rational in Venezuela is the fact that unlike the United States, Caracas is still facing coup attempts backed by a foreign belligerent. In early 2015, the Venezuelan government uncovered yet another brewing coup attempt. This time, plotters being paid in U.S. dollars were planning to incite street violence, then carry out a series of coordinated bombings targeting key government sites. President Nicolas Maduro accused opposition leaders of mostly being aware of the plot well in advance, and said the plan was aimed at culminating in the collapse of his government.

As new elections approach on Dec. 6, concern is again mounting that Venezuela's opposition could be planning more destabilization. However, it's unclear which route the United States will take. Will Washington continue its simmering campaign of underhand destabilization, or will it opt for another open coup attempt like in 2002?
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/Tracking-US-Intervention-in-Venezuela-Since-2002-20151117-0045.html

And this is only since 2002. There were many interventions prior to that.

will ever accept any blame for its conditions? Probably never. Always have to blame their failures on someone else.

I replied with actual fact to your question.

You totally ignored the facts I raised because:

1) You cannot rebut the facts, and/or
2) Avoidance is your preferred tactic when you are losing.

I choose 1 and 2.

that has miserably failed everywhere it has been tried. The only way it stays in power is through dictators who kill or imprison any opponents. That is a fact which you ignore and avoid.

And Canada also?

All are far more socialistic than the US and in better economic shape.

Except in your own self defined mind. All those countries are capitalist market based economies. Sorry to bring reality to your universe.

Capitalism is a failed system for the bottom 90% and a huge success for the top 10% and a massive success for the top 1/10th of the top 1%.

We don't really see poverty accompanying socialism in Scandinavia for example.

They are capitalist market based economies. They are social democratic countries which is not socialism by any accepted definition.

Are socialist countries. They're totalitarian.

The only true socialist country to have ever exist was?

In those countries the government owns and controls the economy. The government makes all the major economic decisions in the country. They own the industries. None of that is true in Scandinavia.

Socialism does allow for private corporations, to varying degrees.

Socialism means heavy government involvement (regulation, some state owned strategic sectors, some state ownership of stock, lots of social programs, lots of social services that are well funded).

It does not mean that the government sets prices.
It does not mean that the government chooses winners and losers over and above the marketplace.
It does not mean that the government rations basic products.
It does not mean that the government assigns workers to jobs.

All those actions are the hallmarks of fascism and authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

Yes, they are socialist by the commonly used definition of the word: They have a large variety of well provisioned social programs provided by the government and not left to charities or 'industry'.

No, they are not "socialist" in the communist sense of the word.

Socialists love to make excuses of the failure of socialism. And then they point to non-socialist counties as successes.

Here is a broadly accepted definition, pretty much as I stated:

But they are ruled by socialist principles, they have redistribution of wealth, free education systems, a huge public sector, state owned and driven media and high voter participation. So the fact that the businesses are well oiled capitalist machines does not really matter so much - does it?

Unless you get your proportions right about this you will never understand what makes these countries so much better of than the rest of the world.

They have enjoyed our protection, paid or by U.S. taxpayers, for 70 years now. That is why they have many of the things you mention -- not because they are "ruled by socialist principles".

You confuse having the means with making the choice of what to spend the means on. Having the same kind of discretionary spending, it could had been used for tax cuts for the rich. Only you run into the fact that different principles guide the spending in these countries. Socialist principles. Principles about the well fare of the weak and poor. And less buttering the rich and the power full.

And lets us be honest here. A few wars of choice is what have cost the us taxpayers dearly. So unless you are saying that Saddam had a secret plan to invade Sweden I cant really see why any military alliance is relevant.

Just say that. I doubt your "socialists" in Scandinavia would agree. I am against a huge military but neither party agrees with that. But you can't have a huge military budget and a hue social welfare net.

Really, what kind of crap tactic is that you are using? Ask a question, and before the other person can answer, you claim they haven't answered.

Yes, I can provide other examples, but no, you have proven you are not interested in any answer so ... goodbye.

Can you provide a modern example of a successful socialist system that was purely socialist from the beginning?

Last edited Wed Jul 6, 2016, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

or on traditional farming. Or if the socialist government lets people learn skills used in capitalism. Also you cannot use capitalists computers if you are real socialists. And no sex!

Real socialism is made from unicorn dust and rainbows. If the scandinavians are happy it is only because they have stolen from from the capitalist nations. Can we invade now?

Just lower rates.

It makes workers more willing to work for less than living wages and makes it easier for the bosses to put one worker against another.

The bosses use racism, patriotism, and misogyny as a means of dividing people.

Poverty makes FEWER people work. They drop out of the aboveground economy.

People who have a poor education and poor health make terrible workers.

especially in economically distressed areas, struggle to get by through unreported ventures such as breeding and sale of puppies and animals, strip dancing and prostitution, child pornography, drug dealing and other criminal activities. The health of these Americans is also usually challenged or poor, often at a relatively young age from medical neglect or drug use that is directly related to the impoverished circumstances and precarious lifestyle of their existence. Mainstream media grossly overlooks this tragic, appalling reality that grows worse every decade in the richest country on earth.

The lifespan of residents of McDowell County, West Virginia is 18 years shorter than that of people who live 5 hours away in Fairfax County, Northern Virginia just outside the nation's capital. An hour east of Washington in de-industrialized Baltimore where unemployment is 40-50% in some neighborhoods, the quality of life and lifespan of local citizens is equally dismal.

That is why the government, owned by capitalists, sees no need to eliminate unemployment.

And given that the top 1% have taken nearly 100% of the wealth created in the past 30 years or so, why would you think that they have any interest in helping the bottom 99%?

The 6 principal Walton heirs are worth more than the bottom 40%of American workers COMBINED. The system, as it is, works for them. They have no need to pay their workers a living wage. And the substandard wages that they pay allows many of their workers to collect state and Federal aid, effectively "externalizing" some of their labor costs onto you and me.

Keeps people scared, and keeps wages down.

Of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels and it's been a consistent failure. Wolff has been flogging that dead horse for years.

That's what capitalism does about poverty and gross inequality.

It's just accompanying the current system less than any previous one.

Not even the other way around.

... not socialism.

You can retain Capitalism in a Socialist economy.

Dumb idea. OTOH, I do think it's worth addresssing Marx's critiques of capitalism, as I think they are often accurate.

There. Fixed it for ya.

I was a regular reader through the bush years, and especially during and after the run-up to the second Iraq war, but the the last few years it seems to only post the uselessly negative side of any "truth", and to selectively distort whatever "truth" they are looking at using the same tools as Fox news, or Hannity, or any number of other right-wing propagandists. Of course, they distort it in the politically opposite direction, but truth itself is no more the central focus than "fair and balanced" describes Fox.

So, yes, the article does state a fact. But it fails to mention that overall material wealth and physical well-being has increased massively under capitalist systems compared to prior systems (feudalism or old-style monarchy) or competing systems (communism). I'd welcome a discussion of poverty that really looked at the problem and really described workable solutions. We have millions of people in poverty in the US, what should we do, right now, within the Democratic party platform for instance, to help turn things around for people?

Who writes silly horseshit like this???

and rec's it?

a major reason poverty exists is because the most powerful nations insist on it, with horrifyingly violent means as deemed necessary.

He spoke 2000 years ago as a Jew living in what was then an outpost of the Roman Empire, mightiest civilization of its time. Before that time, in that region, were other mighty civilizations. They took various forms. Would you call any of them "capitalist," or indeed any other of our modern terms?

My point is, the term "always" is pretty all-encompassing, and poverty seems to have been in existence practically forever.

If you look at how any of our current societies define poverty is is the natural and default state of man.

A person is born poor- they have nothing unless provided by others.

A person who does nothing will be poor unless other step in and provide.

The state you revert to if you do nothing and nobody does for you is your default and natural state.

So, by definition poverty is the default natural state of man.

The question is twofold- first is is really a must to remove poverty as we define it? Most Native American and other indigenous societies existed in wha we now would consider a perpetual state of poverty and more and more many people are realizing they had a pretty good way of doing things.

If the answer to the the first question is yes then we must determine what system of economics and society best raises everyone up from that default existence.

To insist that it's exclusively a product of capitalism is misplaced concern at best - and myopic ideological stupidity at worst.

It'll be so much easier that way...

and animals; incest, torture, theft; murder, slavery, genocide and many other ills have always been around. Just let it be is so much easier. And cheaper.

- is the first step in solving it.

Capitalism is not the reason poverty exists. Treating it as the one and only cause perpetuates poverty, it doesn't alleviate it.

Gross, record income inequality, poverty, are caused by unregulated capitalism - where the capitalists control the gov't(s). Like we have now. It's an issue that can not and should no longer be avoided.

False equivalency arguments ie: "well so does socialism and communism!" are irrelevant.

Democratic socialism (ie: not Marxist style - there IS a difference), reduces poverty. That is what we should all be fighting for.

Which someone operates without a critique of capitalism itself. What it really objects to is not inequality or global exploitation but the relative decline of the core (Europe and the US) vs. the periphery (the Global South). Capitalism is by its very nature exploitative. It depends on the accumulation of capital based on the exploitation of labor. That was as true during the days when the US white middle-class lived in relative prosperity as today. Certainly economic dynamics have changed. We have seen a consolidation of capital, increasingly untethered from the nation state. But the exploitation and poverty itself is not new.

based on the exploitation of the nature/reality/whatever you want to call it. All economic systems stem from that. None of them are going to be fair, because they all exist in physical reality, and if the planet is finite, everyone can't have everything.

Depending on who you ask, inequality, global exploitation, or relative decline of the core vs. the periphery will be the main objection, but all three(plus anything else people want to add to the list) will be happening at the same time, and all the time. Sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but always there.

The biggest issue isn't which economic system to use. It's the essentially unlimited human imagine vs. finite physical reality.

but far too many imagine that exploitation and poverty is something new, unique to this particular period in time.

by poverty.

Even Jesus knew this.

Are we on track to change, or to stick with the status quo?