Robber barons or socialism

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Vote

[Kingpoleon]

Whichever one places me in charge.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

*cries*

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

False choice. One leads to the other (and in some cases, also true for the reverse).

[Intell]

Soialisim is moral, socialism is just.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Soialisim is moral, socialism is just.

Socialist economies are horribly inefficient, inefficient economies don't produce or distribute vital goods(eg food, medicine, housing) very well, socialist economies are unstable, socialist governments tend to become oppressive autocracy's, those that don't(and many that do) ditch socialism at some point and/or collapse anyway.

"Moral", my ***, it doesn't work and trying usually leads to suffering with little to no benefit.

[Blue3]

Soialisim is moral, socialism is just.

Socialist economies are horribly inefficient, inefficient economies don't produce or distribute vital goods(eg food, medicine, housing) very well, socialist economies are unstable, socialist governments tend to become oppressive autocracy's, those that don't(and many that do) ditch socialism at some point and/or collapse anyway.

"Moral", my ***, it doesn't work and trying usually leads to suffering with little to no benefit.

UK, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand... they've all had socialist governments. Not one-party rule, but socialist governments. And their legacy still exists and is quite popular and noncontroversial.

How bad are their economies? How autocratic are their governments?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Soialisim is moral, socialism is just.

Socialist economies are horribly inefficient, inefficient economies don't produce or distribute vital goods(eg food, medicine, housing) very well, socialist economies are unstable, socialist governments tend to become oppressive autocracy's, those that don't(and many that do) ditch socialism at some point and/or collapse anyway.

"Moral", my ***, it doesn't work and trying usually leads to suffering with little to no benefit.

UK, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand... they've all had socialist governments. Not one-party rule, but socialist governments. And their legacy still exists and is quite popular and noncontroversial.

How bad are their economies? How autocratic are their governments?

    They've implemented some socialist policies, but there's nothing in that list that could be characterized as a socialist economy full-stop.

[Blue3]

Soialisim is moral, socialism is just.

Socialist economies are horribly inefficient, inefficient economies don't produce or distribute vital goods(eg food, medicine, housing) very well, socialist economies are unstable, socialist governments tend to become oppressive autocracy's, those that don't(and many that do) ditch socialism at some point and/or collapse anyway.

"Moral", my ***, it doesn't work and trying usually leads to suffering with little to no benefit.

UK, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand... they've all had socialist governments. Not one-party rule, but socialist governments. And their legacy still exists and is quite popular and noncontroversial.

How bad are their economies? How autocratic are their governments?

    They've implemented some socialist policies, but there's nothing in that list that could be characterized as a socialist economy full-stop.

They have elected socialist governments. Their economies are socialist economies.

The definition of a socialist economy is NOT the government owning everything.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Soialisim is moral, socialism is just.

Socialist economies are horribly inefficient, inefficient economies don't produce or distribute vital goods(eg food, medicine, housing) very well, socialist economies are unstable, socialist governments tend to become oppressive autocracy's, those that don't(and many that do) ditch socialism at some point and/or collapse anyway.

"Moral", my ***, it doesn't work and trying usually leads to suffering with little to no benefit.

UK, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand... they've all had socialist governments. Not one-party rule, but socialist governments. And their legacy still exists and is quite popular and noncontroversial.

How bad are their economies? How autocratic are their governments?

    They've implemented some socialist policies, but there's nothing in that list that could be characterized as a socialist economy full-stop.

They have elected socialist governments. Their economies are socialist economies.

The definition of a socialist economy is NOT the government owning everything.

Yes, it's public ownership of the means of production.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Soialisim is moral, socialism is just.

Socialist economies are horribly inefficient, inefficient economies don't produce or distribute vital goods(eg food, medicine, housing) very well, socialist economies are unstable, socialist governments tend to become oppressive autocracy's, those that don't(and many that do) ditch socialism at some point and/or collapse anyway.

"Moral", my ***, it doesn't work and trying usually leads to suffering with little to no benefit.

UK, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand... they've all had socialist governments. Not one-party rule, but socialist governments. And their legacy still exists and is quite popular and noncontroversial.

How bad are their economies? How autocratic are their governments?

    They've implemented some socialist policies, but there's nothing in that list that could be characterized as a socialist economy full-stop.

They have elected socialist governments. Their economies are socialist economies.

The definition of a socialist economy is NOT the government owning everything.

What is it then? The question clearly implied full-blown ownership of the means of production.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

The ones responsible for most of the advancements in US industry in the early 20th century.

Not the ones responsible for nuking the economies of half the world in the 20th century.

[Ljube]

Socialism doesn't work, so robber barons.

[Blue3]

Soialisim is moral, socialism is just.

Socialist economies are horribly inefficient, inefficient economies don't produce or distribute vital goods(eg food, medicine, housing) very well, socialist economies are unstable, socialist governments tend to become oppressive autocracy's, those that don't(and many that do) ditch socialism at some point and/or collapse anyway.

"Moral", my ***, it doesn't work and trying usually leads to suffering with little to no benefit.

UK, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand... they've all had socialist governments. Not one-party rule, but socialist governments. And their legacy still exists and is quite popular and noncontroversial.

How bad are their economies? How autocratic are their governments?

    They've implemented some socialist policies, but there's nothing in that list that could be characterized as a socialist economy full-stop.

They have elected socialist governments. Their economies are socialist economies.

The definition of a socialist economy is NOT the government owning everything.

The definition of socialism is public ownership of the means of production. In what European country is this the case?

That's still not owning everything, or one party rule, or totalitarianism. It just means a change in the constitution.

And I believe it's The People who own the means of production, not necessarily the state although it's often interpreted that way. In the 21st century, it could mean making sure everyone has access to a 3D printer, free downloads, raw resources, and some property.

[Blue3]

And who says that interpretation is correct?

[Intell]

Socialism is the democratic ownership of the means of production, by the people and the community. This means there can still can be private owenership, and private business.

It is the advocation of morality based upon social equality, and the ideal, that wealth should be given to those that do not happen, from those who have too much.

It is a political, moral and economic system on how the world should be run, to look out for those in need. Not everything the government does is socialism, but a lot of aspects of social welfare and government programs of universal healthcare, are socialist ideas, and are shift towards a more socialist society, in terms of values, in a capitalistic contury.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Soialisim is moral, socialism is just.

Socialist economies are horribly inefficient, inefficient economies don't produce or distribute vital goods(eg food, medicine, housing) very well, socialist economies are unstable, socialist governments tend to become oppressive autocracy's, those that don't(and many that do) ditch socialism at some point and/or collapse anyway.

"Moral", my ***, it doesn't work and trying usually leads to suffering with little to no benefit.

UK, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand... they've all had socialist governments. Not one-party rule, but socialist governments. And their legacy still exists and is quite popular and noncontroversial.

How bad are their economies? How autocratic are their governments?

Japan has never elected a socialist government. And - given what ensued both times when the entrenched LDP were briefly booped out of office - it is debatable whether they've even had a centre left government.

Neither has Canada, although the Liberal Party have often aped the NDP and its predecessors when they felt necessary.

More to the point, almost every country you mention (whatever you feel about socialism vs capitalism or whatever) has free, relatively unregulated markets, a substantial private financial sector, most of its land and industry in private ownership, largely free trade, a tax structure increasingly dependent more on VAT than high income taxes on upper levels etc. Just because socialists have ran them - in some cases become quite entrenched - does not mean they have become socialist states.

[Fight for Trump]

Soialisim is moral, socialism is just.

Socialist economies are horribly inefficient, inefficient economies don't produce or distribute vital goods(eg food, medicine, housing) very well, socialist economies are unstable, socialist governments tend to become oppressive autocracy's, those that don't(and many that do) ditch socialism at some point and/or collapse anyway.

"Moral", my ***, it doesn't work and trying usually leads to suffering with little to no benefit.

UK, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand... they've all had socialist governments. Not one-party rule, but socialist governments. And their legacy still exists and is quite popular and noncontroversial.

How bad are their economies? How autocratic are their governments?

Japan has never elected a socialist government. And - given what ensued both times when the entrenched LDP were briefly booped out of office - it is debatable whether they've even had a centre left government.

Neither has Canada, although the Liberal Party have often aped the NDP and its predecessors when they felt necessary.

More to the point, almost every country you mention (whatever you feel about socialism vs capitalism or whatever) has free, relatively unregulated markets, a substantial private financial sector, most of its land and industry in private ownership, largely free trade, a tax structure increasingly dependent more on VAT than high income taxes on upper levels etc. Just because socialists have ran them - in some cases become quite entrenched - does not mean they have become socialist states.

I hate to admit it, but this is 100% correct.

[RINO Tom]

Socialism doesn't work, so robber barons.

And "robber barons" works?  LOL

[SWE]

Socialism doesn't work, so robber barons.

And "robber barons" works?  LOL

Fiscally socialist, socially robber barons.

[parochial boy]

Soialisim is moral, socialism is just.

Socialist economies are horribly inefficient, inefficient economies don't produce or distribute vital goods(eg food, medicine, housing) very well, socialist economies are unstable, socialist governments tend to become oppressive autocracy's, those that don't(and many that do) ditch socialism at some point and/or collapse anyway.

"Moral", my ***, it doesn't work and trying usually leads to suffering with little to no benefit.

UK, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand... they've all had socialist governments. Not one-party rule, but socialist governments. And their legacy still exists and is quite popular and noncontroversial.

How bad are their economies? How autocratic are their governments?

Japan has never elected a socialist government. And - given what ensued both times when the entrenched LDP were briefly booped out of office - it is debatable whether they've even had a centre left government.

Neither has Canada, although the Liberal Party have often aped the NDP and its predecessors when they felt necessary.

More to the point, almost every country you mention (whatever you feel about socialism vs capitalism or whatever) has free, relatively unregulated markets, a substantial private financial sector, most of its land and industry in private ownership, largely free trade, a tax structure increasingly dependent more on VAT than high income taxes on upper levels etc. Just because socialists have ran them - in some cases become quite entrenched - does not mean they have become socialist states.

At the same time, many of those countries have had periods where public spending accounted for well over half of total economic output.

It's all the ladder of abstraction anyway. There is no agreed upon definition of socialism, case in point being the debate as to whether to put include social democracy or not.

Anybody arguing as if there is is either lying or is using it to justify their own bias

[Person Man]

Robber Baronism is basically socialism that I don't benefit from....so....