Has Socialism?

Question

destroyed the majority of countries where it was tryed?

Answer 1

Socialism has destroyed the potential of every country where it's been tried, and has done much worse in some cases. Please understand that capitalism and socialism/communism are economic systems - not social systems. So you have to measure effects in terms of economics. The US economy is far and away superior in size strength and diversity than any other country that has ever existed. Free markets make that happen. Each time the government intervenes and tries to manage some aspect of the free economy, economic strength is diluted. I noticed some postings about the relative strength of Norway and Sweden as examples of socialism working. I disagree. Those countries could have economies that are multiples of where they are if free markets ruled. And larger economies mean higher wages, better quality of life and greater financial security.

A good way to put into perspective just how much stronger the free-market driven US economy is than other countries, I'm attaching a link to a map. This map substitutes a country name for a state that has the same GDP. For example, the entire country of Sweden has the same GDP as the state of Virginia.

Finally, as a practical case being played out on the international stage, keep your eyes on Venezuela. That country is moving from a quasi free-market economy, to a Socialist 'paradise' under Hugo Chavez. The decline has already begun, and will end in disaster. Inflation is already on the rise, and the poor Chavez promised to help are now worse off than before. The entire population of Venezuela now must pay the price of not learning the lessons of history, and voting in a leftist radical.

Answer 2

No true socialism refers only to the production and distribution of goods, nothing more. It has never worked in reality because the countries claiming to be socialist were if fact not, it was Stalinism, Marxism, Maoism etc;

You cannot say something "detroyed countries" when it was never existed in its pure form without corruption and greed of oppressive leaders.

The above Stalin et al are not socialist or communistic leaders and neither were their Governments.

People are always confusing socialism with communism, communism with Stalinism and Maoism, etc.

You have to be more specific and learn the differences between these forms of government. And to study them objectively. Americans have been raised to fear socialism and communism because they dont really understand either and their prejudices are rooted in the cold war against the USSR. Things change and so do Governments administration of their countries.

Scandanavian countries have a form of socialism and I suppose you could even say Canada has as well, however capitalism plays a huge role in all these countries. There is private ownership of production and distribution.

Answer 3

I'd say the jury is still out
If its not hard line (Communist) and the country is less than 50 million people, it seems to do OK (!)
look at Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries. These places are also very homogeneous, there is no minority greater than 10 %. Also these European examples are countries that are very stable, got existing for 3 or more centuries
Britian and France brush with socailism but when their economy deterioates they return to capitalism
In Asia, I'd consider Taiwan, Viet Nam, are pretty close to socailist, so is Japan
But 'socialism' is usually a 'cult of personality' look at Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin. These leaders injected themselves into the politcal farcas as a 'socialist reformer'

And that's the universal problem with socailism, no one wants it just they can be the serf, they only want it as a means to their own success - to be the first among equals

Answer 4

No. There are many countries around the world who run a socialist system that are very stable and successful. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, The Netherlands and many South American countries - just to name a few.
Socialism is NOT Communism. Communism calls for the armed struggle of the working classes to overthrow the bourgeois class and equally share in the output of their production.

Socialism is a system of government that allows economic and personal freedoms but that also balances civic and social responsibility of citizens with the principle of individual rights. It is this feature which distinguishes it from Capitalism which under a liberalist system, enshrines individual rather than citizen responsibility.

Answer 5

No it has not (BTW--I am NOT a supporter of socialism).

In many countries--Sweden, France, Israel, etc. socialism works fairly well. And--in such cuntries there are strong protections for individual freedom and civil rights.

Now--if you are talking about communism, that's another matter--but communism is not the same as socialism, though there are superficial similarities. Communism has indeed destroyed every country in which its been tried. You could argue about Cuba and China--but neither is actually communist--both ae sustained by signifigant market economiies.

BTW--socialism does have its limits--it doesn't do well against strong market economies (e.g. look at the problems France has)--and it is NOT always protective of human rights. But it's not inherantly a disaster, either.

Answer 6

Socialism and capitalism are not two sides of a fence, they are two ends of a continuum. Every developed country is somewhere on a line between pure socialism and pure capitalism. We in the US are probably further towards the capitalism end than anyone else. But we have socialized education, police and fire protection, even things like weather prediction. Most developed countries use socialism for more things. A lot of people think we would be better off to move a bit more towards the socialist end of the spectrum.

Answer 7

Not a bit. Cuba is one of the poorest countries on earth, yet has a higher standard of living than any country in the caribean and has the best health care in latin america.

Northern Europe is full of socialist countries; they are all freer, richer, healthier, and happier than we are.

So, no. What destroys societies is totalitarianism, whether the leaders pretend they are socialist or corporatist.

Answer 8

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.

I think that it looks great on paper 'till greedy people get their hands involved.

Answer 9

it's like saying...there's too much sun or there is too much dark...capitalism is fine, but uncontrolled Capitalism would mean no morality....it's quite OK to have 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night....people are way too concerned that a few socialistic ideals will be the end of mankind...politics is a great evolution of ideas...the best answer hasn't been thought of yet....anyone who believes either a complete Capitalistic or Socialistic government is best is living in the past.

Answer 10

No Sweden, Norway and Denmark and very socialized countries and they are stable and successful. I don't want socialism though.