FORUM QUICK LINKS > News | Economy | DP Liberty Forum | Activism | DIGG! | Books | Videos | Events | RP Repubs | Rand Paul 2010

   

Complete list of poor nations that adopted gov't socialism & became prosperous:

There are no such nations, to my knowledge. If you know of one, please let us know in a comment.

On the other hand, there are plenty of rich nations that began socialist policies and then became poorer. The USA is an obvious recent example.

output

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

China isn't politically or socially free at all.

But the standard of living there has increased dramatically in the last 20 years since Deng reversed the bulk of Mao's economic policies.

Ron Paul has gone on record as saying that it is easier to start a small business in China than in the USA. I dare say that the same is true of Europe.

The credit crisis is causing hardship and unemployment in China - but the government is planning to use its massive accumulated reserves to get over the hump.

My point is that not all collectivists are the same.

http://www.mises.org/Book...

http://www.ratical.org/ra...

Fluoride anyone?
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...

Politically, not so much.

Politically, not so much. Socially, perhaps.

Ask a Chinese person next time. Every time I've gone there, their quality of life and attitudes have changed radically over the years... and in my case, we're talking about a mere eight years.
.................
Truther?
No, sir!
.................
http://libertarianwiki.or...

Nazi Economic Miracle?

dan3745,

You cite a good example, in that their was an **appearance** of prosperity in Nazi Germany. The substance was a different story.

I think that a closer reading into Hitler's finances will show that from the beginning, Hitler was financed by many, mostly Americans esp Henry Ford, and the American Banking (the big cheeses at the Fed) interests. Also the closing of the Gold window to Americans but not foreigners was a policy, instituted by FDR, that allowed the parasitical tyranny of Hitler to finance "prosperity". The average German did well only in comparison to the horrendous impositions of the Versailles Treaty, which left the once proud Germans on their knees and destitute. The "prosperity" benefited the war machine (as you pointed out). There were other factors too in that temporarily Germans were allowed to function in some sense economically, again, temporarily.

It is a common misconception that there was a "Nazi Economic Miracle". Tyranny does not work!! Tyrannies are parasitical, all of them, either on the people, or on those who they conquer, if they can. It is a mistake to believe that tyranny ever produces prosperity. The incentive is reversed and supply & demand is twisted and distorted. It simply cannot work.

It is one thing to put a lot of people to work building their own destruction, and quite another to build prosperity.

I hope that you will read more of the history of Nazi finances to understand that appearance does not equal substance.

the nazi economic miracle

Fortune Favors the Bold

was stealing from the Jews before they killed them

You are both right

the Nazi economic miracle was largely due to credit expansion too. Simplified: Germany had to conquer and exploit other countries to sustain its wealth.

Fellowship of the White Rose

Bingo.

Four ways to get out of government debt:

1. Repudiate.

The Russian bolsheviks did this in 1917.

2. Plunder.

This is where war and conquest comes in.

3. Inflate.

Sound familiar?

4. Tax.

Ouch!

http://www.mises.org/Book...

http://www.ratical.org/ra...

Fluoride anyone?
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...

Switzerland is not socialist.

Cameron_DeHart,

Having been there means nothing if you cannot understand and use definitions. Switzerland is hardly socialist. I have noticed that a lot of people go on "impressions", like "Sw"itzerland and "Sw"eden both start with "Sw" so they get confused as to which is which.

For you to say that Switzerland is socialist betrays that you do not know what socialism is, nor do you understand much at all about Switzerland. You have a lot of company, but truth is not determined by a majority vote.

I will not give up by force or coersion to

Freedom is not FREE!!

anything. What I will do is work to free mens minds from all beliefs that they must do ANYTHING that goes along with taking from one individual and giving to another without asking and it being given freely. . Why should I be forced to do anything not in the best interest of what I as an individual believes.

There is one nation that prospered due to socialism.....

Ever heard of the "Nazi economic miracle"? Hitler's bigtime spending on defense and other strong arm methods ended the Great Depression in Germany. They got a jump on the economic boost from WWII. Socialism needs wars, they keep the government big enough to employ half of the people.

War- another reason that socialism sucks.

Nazi Germany wasn't socialist

but fascist, saying it was collectivistic/egalitarian (for those of Aryan race) but private property was accepted.
Hitler used socialist rhetoric to appeal to workers but in fact he allied with big banks and companies who made huge profits in taking part in the exploitation of Jewish and other unwanted groups (corporate capitalism). Having said this, large parts of the German welfare system were build up during the Nazi period, and during the war central economical planning to safeguard the 'final victory' was predominant. The economical success of the Nazi regime is a bit more complicated as being outlined with "getting a jump on the economic boost from WWII." The regime was installed in 1933; the war started in 1939. For instance the initial boost for the economy (that ended mass unemploment and thereby made Hitler really popular) was apparently less caused by Hitler's decrees but by the economical cycle and the measures taken by the last "civil" (though unelected) Brüning administration http://en.wikipedia.org/w... .

Generally speaking the usage of the term 'socialist' in this thread is rather blurred. As far as I see most people mix up socialism with collectivism and economical freedom with individual liberty.

Fellowship of the White Rose

You fail remarkably...

:)

To learn more; http://www.youtube.com/wa...

If you define socialism

as a "negation of capitalism and its prize system" as v.Mises does according to the speaker in this video you have also to include the mercantilism of the 18th century or the allied regime after occupation of Germany post WW II because they knew prize and supply control too.
In the end you may label political and economical systems as you like, but it doesn't help in a political discusssion to put Mao's China, the English welfare system of the 70's, mercantilism, the EU and East Germany before 1989 into the same pidgeon-hole. People who don't know v.Mise's definition won't simply understand you.
On a sideline: I'm aware of and agree with the libertarian concept, that fascism and socialism aren't opposed extremes but are on the totalitarian side of the political spectrum opposed to a state of unrestrained personal and economical freedom on the other side. But nevertheless it is important to be aware and label the differences between systems that don't know neither (like China under Mao) that restricted political and econmical freedom for the benefit of certain groups (like fascism), systems that have economical but not personal freedom (hard to think of, perhabs nowadays China) and those systems that have personal liberty but no or restricted economical liberty (like the EU-states).

Fellowship of the White Rose

Hahaha

"In the end you may label political and economical systems as you like, but it doesn't help in a political discusssion to put Mao's China, the English welfare system of the 70's, mercantilism, the EU and East Germany before 1989 into the same pidgeon-hole. People who don't know v.Mise's definition won't simply understand you."

It is the truth. They are ALL COLLECTIVIST.

What is the problem? Very slight differences in style, but it is the SAME shit.

Here, I'll DUMB it down for you with an analogy.

Collectivism = a t shirt.
All the "differing" labels, and attempts to describe the difference in shirt COLORS.... this one is blue, red, green... whatever.

In the end, it is STILL a t-shirt no matter what you label it, or whatever color it appears as.

Get with the program and get over your flawed concept. :)

Conza88. I usually agree with you. Not this time.

If you want to convert people to the cause of economic, political and social liberty you will get absolutelty NOWHERE if you just lump them in with everyone else you don't like.

Let's assume you are talking to young Obama supporter. How would you convince him that he is wrong?

By lumping him in with Joseph Stalin, John McCain and the Ku Klux Klan? Good luck with that! LOL.

It would be alot wiser to LISTEN to him carefully, address his concerns and cast doubt on his political premises.

http://www.mises.org/Book...

http://www.ratical.org/ra...

Fluoride anyone?
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...

BS strawman..

Have I ever insinuated that? Or ever suggested such a thing? Hahah.. please quote me. Please.

Non sequitur = latin for "it does not follow"

;)

It DOES FOLLOW from your premise. IT IS your premise.

If your premise is A, I can logically draw the most trivial of conclusions from it. Namely, A.

How is that a "non sequitur"?

http://www.mises.org/Book...

http://www.ratical.org/ra...

Fluoride anyone?
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...

Nope. Wrong.

My premise is A = fascism and communism are both collectivist.

They are two wings of the SAME BIRD. Left wing (Communist) Right wing (Fascist)... that simple enough for you? They are both collectivist.

That's the truth. It is the false left / right paradigm. The way you destroy it, is by rejecting its esoteric agenda... and highlighting the fallacy for what it is.

If you continue to argue within its model, you will FAIL forever. Understand?

The thing is you have then gone on to assume the erroneous conclusion; that I am unable to present it logically, or that people will not be able to understand. This is what you said:

"If you want to convert people to the cause of economic, political and social liberty you will get absolutelty NOWHERE if you just lump them in with everyone else you don't like."

Fail. YOU will get absolutely no where if you continue to argue within the left right paradigm.

Now - you hold the notion:

"Let's assume you are talking to young Obama supporter. How would you convince him that he is wrong? By lumping him in with Joseph Stalin, John McCain and the Ku Klux Klan? Good luck with that! LOL.
It would be alot wiser to LISTEN to him carefully, address his concerns and cast doubt on his political premises."

HERE is a video on my yt channel; it is called HOW TO SELL LIBERTY
http://www.youtube.com/wa...

3 part series. I suggest you watch it ;) Your conclusion does not follow at all.

Right here conza...

"It is the truth. They are ALL COLLECTIVIST.

What is the problem? Very slight differences in style, but it is the SAME shit."

Very slight differences in style? WTF?

Modern day America and Europe leave alot to be desired but I don't think a holocaust survivor would call it a "slight difference in style".

You go on to say:

"Here, I'll DUMB it down for you with an analogy.

Collectivism = a t shirt.
All the "differing" labels, and attempts to describe the difference in shirt COLORS.... this one is blue, red, green... whatever.

In the end, it is STILL a t-shirt no matter what you label it, or whatever color it appears as.

Get with the program and get over your flawed concept. :)"

Ron Paul makes DISTINCTIONS between communism and facism. You don't. He did that with reference to the bailout. For a reason.

Ron Paul makes DISTINCTIONS between John McCain and Barack Obama's support base. You don't!

Ron Paul is humble, friendly and persuasive. Try emulating that.

http://www.mises.org/Book...

http://www.ratical.org/ra...

Fluoride anyone?
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...

Tsk tsk.

"Very slight differences in style? WTF?

Modern day America and Europe leave alot to be desired but I don't think a holocaust survivor would call it a "slight difference in style"."

Differences in style - YES... in their USE OF FORCE.. I'm sure someone in Auswhitz (Nazi Germany - fascism), and someone in the Gulags (Soviet Union) - would agree, THERE AIN"T MUCH DIFFERENCE!

Here is some homework:

Proper Role of Government (StopandLook production)
http://www.youtube.com/wa...

"Ron Paul makes DISTINCTIONS between communism and facism. You don't. He did that with reference to the bailout. For a reason. Ron Paul makes DISTINCTIONS between John McCain and Barack Obama's support base. You don't! "

Absolutely wrong. You are profoundly ignorant of my position. Don't put words in my mouth, or misinterpret me.

There are slight differences / distinctions - I HAVE stated that. Well then, you say I don't make any - I DO... Haha.

Yes, there is a difference between John McCains support base and barack obama's... some pretend to support free markets and war, the others pretend to be against the war and against free markets... As for the candidates:

- Barack Obama: INTERNATIONAL socialist (marxist)
- John McCain: NATIONAL socialist (fascist)

I'm sorry, there are 5 letters of difference >.< You were saying?

Acutally, National

Acutally, National Socialism, along with Marxism, Leninism, Maoist, Trotskites and Fabians are all from the same Socialist root. One very interesting fact is while the Nazis were very anti-communist, they, along with the Marxist Communist both accepted Fabian Socialism.

http://www.1776solution.b...

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Barry Goldwater

You literally have NO idea what you are talking about.

The Nazi party was called; the National SOCIALIST party...

National Socialism = fascism aka corporatism
International Socialism = marxism aka communism

"Private property was accepted" ? ahaha.. that is irrelevent, because there is PUBLIC ownership of the means of production - that is socialism.

"Generally speaking the usage of the term 'socialist' in this thread is rather blurred. As far as I see most people mix up socialism with collectivism and economical freedom with individual liberty."

No, your understanding of it is. Socialism = IS collectivism. And COLLECTIVISM is TOTALITARIANISM.. Btw, that isn't just some nice little slogan, I can give you the proof a priori if you are unable to reason it yourseld.

Economic freedom IS succinct with individual liberty.

Wow... you've got a lot of learning to do mate.

Conza

Why don't you just state your case without being belligerent?

He needs a high dose of vitamin B6.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/h...

That should make him more friendly and reasonable ;-)

http://www.mises.org/Book...

http://www.ratical.org/ra...

Fluoride anyone?
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...

Sorry,

you are wrong on some facts and on logic.

The means of production in Nazi Germany weren't publicly owned.
The Nazis took great care to make even the de facto confiscation of Jewish property look "free market", since they didn't nationalize it, but forced the Jewish owners to offer it for sale. Of course these were most the times bargains for Nazi cronies, but it was still private property.
Even those industries that took part in the war effort and the industrial killing of unwanted groups were privately owned and had strong links to international financial groups (that financed Hitler's rise to power - do some research on Prescott Bush or see the history of the FORD compagnie in Germany - no CT).

You fall prey to the self-labeled name National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party
There was no specific ideology behind the Party when Hitler joined the DAP (German Worker's Party) in 1920 as party member 555 (properly No 55). The founders resented the new republic but as well the old aristocratic upper-class establishment. If you see the 25-points programm of 1920 http://en.wikipedia.org/w... you may say it contained some socialist elements, but you should also notice, that Hitler later soon disallowed any discussion of this programme and hoped it will be forgotten. Of course the name appealed to workers and 'petite bourgeois' who otherwise may have voted for communist or socialist party. But all that was left of socialism in the pre-war Nazi Germany was a strong sense of egalitarianism (for true-bred German's) and denialof individualism ('You are nothing, your people is everything). After the outbreak of war central-planing of the economy became more and more important, but you can see this also for the economies of the UK and the US, that were 'coordinated' for the benefit of the war effort.

Your definition comes down to Socialism=Corporatism=Fascism=Communism0Totalitarianism

That goes back to the understanding that the extremes of the political spectre are not communism on the left v. fascism on the right, but a free society v. totalitarism. But it doesn't help to throw them together under the label totalitarism. Of course it is a factual big difference between a system where open opposition and dissent is largely possible (like in the states of the EU) or where it may be followed by certain death (like in Hitler's Germany).

Fellowship of the White Rose

Well said my friend.

If Ron Paul himself is at pains to point out distinctions between his opponents - we would do well to follow suit.

Ron Paul suggested that Obama supporters would be more likely to listen to the freedom message than John McCain supporters.

Why is that? Maybe he is onto something?

Ron Paul also fielded a "socialism" question from a reporter about the Bailout. He explained that the bailout was...

...CLOSER TO FASCISM than "sweetheart communism".

His reference to "sweetheart communism" is very telling. A European would know exactly what he meant by that!

Ron Paul knows his history and he knows his enemies very well.

http://www.mises.org/Book...

http://www.ratical.org/ra...

Fluoride anyone?
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...

Thank you, Brit,

The more worrying aspect of this discussion is that conza88 appears not to see that there are political systems that offer economical freedom but not personal freedom. Nazi Germany offered perhabs more economical freedom and chances for entrepreneurship than nowadays Germany, i you were 'Aryan' and didn't openly oppose the regime. Look at the story of the famous Oskar Schindler http://en.wikipedia.org/w.... The same you may say about Singapore or the PR of China (though I don't know this countries).
I think the message of Ron Paul is that a society of free people guarentees economical as well as personal freedom. I'am sure he is very much aware that there is a difference beween fascist and socialist collectivism and that the US is more endangered to become fascist than socialist.

Fellowship of the White Rose

If conza88 was right, Obama supporters would go to KKK rallies.

Of course, Obama supporters don't go to Klan rallies - unless they want to protest against them.

Collectivists don't come out of a cookie cutter!

http://www.mises.org/Book...

http://www.ratical.org/ra...

Fluoride anyone?
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...

According to that theory,

According to that theory, America is the biggest socialist country in the history of man.

Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden are largely socialist. They dont need war. And they are arguably more free and prosperous than we are.

As I said

in my comment above, the usage of the term 'socialism' on this thread and generally on the DP is blurred. The European countries you mentioned have in fact a high degree of personal liberty but a low degree of economical liberty (due to overregulation and overtaxation). You may call them socialist insofar there is a general assumption in our political systems that the state has to care that everyone is well-fed, sheltered, healthy and gets the chance for a good education.

Fellowship of the White Rose

greetings Colognep.

Do you really think these European countries have a high degree of personal liberty? What if they want to grow orchids that are on the UN's ban list? What if they want to use corporal punishment to discipline their children? What if they want to home-school their children? What if they want to go shooting (Switzerland excepted)? What if they want to start living on a barter system with other like-minded people? What constitutes their freedom? Of course, if you do exactly as the government or society expects and requires of you, then you are perfectly free to do it.

The real test of freedom is seen in those who stand outside the mainstream of society. I wouldn't say the Europeans have a high degree of personal liberty because they have essentially eliminated anything outside the mainstream.

I'm sorry I haven't had much to write on the dp lately, but it's good to see you're still here.

Ha, ha, farmer

I admit you got a point there. Yes, Europeans are generelly speaking more conformistic than Americans. I simply didn't think about these activities, because they are not on my list of desired activities. You also shouldn't forget Holocaust denial which is an offence in my country. Having said this, we are generally speaking much more free than people in the former estblock states or even in the western countries 40 years ago.

Nice to see you on the DP again!

Fellowship of the White Rose

In America, what if you want

In America, what if you want to eat? What if you want to have your wounds healed or your sickness treated? What if you want to live in a warm house? What if you want to work? What if you want to get married?

well

Fortune Favors the Bold

in america, starvation is very uncommon. People who are hungry can get enough food to survive if they want it.

I think you're partially right about healthcare, I think our screwed up semi-controlled, for profit system might be worse in some reagrds then government health care. of course it really depends alot on the people, there are still good doctors who manage to cut through the red tape.

In America...

If you want to eat? Well, for the most part, I think you are pretty free to eat. Go down to Walmart, and you'll see that a lot of us are probably too free to eat for our own good.

Basically, if I grow plants I can eat them. If I raise animals, I can eat them. Those things, of course, take work. What I am guessing from your post is that you expect to be able to eat without doing that work. You expect the government to provide you with food, medical care, and a warm house to live in, and that is your idea of freedom. It may be a nice life, but it's not freedom...and especially not for the people who do the work to provide those things. Hint: The government is certainly not the one who will be doing that work.

A friend from the Soviet Union once told me about how one of their revered writers defined freedom. "Freedom is not being able to do what you want to do, it is fitting into the society and doing your part." Well, I thought about that. I think it is nonsense. Basically, freedom is being able to do what you want to do subject to the security of your life and efforts. When someone confiscates your labor through taxes, the security of your effort is in question and they are draining away your freedom.

If you want to redefine freedom as living a good life...having the government confiscate the labor of others to provide for you, then I don't think you've got a valid notion of freedom either.

I meant, what if you are

I meant, what if you are homeless. You have no means of eating or sleeping in a warm home. There is no guarantee that you will survive on the streets.

There are no guarantees in life except that you will die.

Oh, and the government will make a bad situation worse.

Yes, but

most Europeans would agree with Cameron. Though they complain about the taxes and duties they have to pay, most of them are scared about a life without a public health system for instance. And you shouldn't forget it somehow worked quite well at least for a couple of decades in my country, because our economy was so productive.

Fellowship of the White Rose

Really? Any precedent for

Really? Any precedent for that? Cause Sweden seems to be doing fine.

Ask m72mc about his "Need a girk. Chatta me kort" thread.

Collectivism and alcoholism go hand-in-hand. LOL

http://www.mises.org/Book...

http://www.ratical.org/ra...

Fluoride anyone?
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...

What happened to our Swedish DPer?

He would disagree.

Do you live in Sweden? Have you seen their income tax rates?

Also, I live in a country that is highly socialized. From the outside, we seem to be doing fine but we are rotting on the inside.

Where is that? I was in

Where is that?

I was in Sweden for a month, and talked to alot of Swedish people.

You talked but you didn't listen.

I'm sure the people you met in the youth hostels were ALL FOR the system. Next time talk to their mommies and daddies.

I'am afraid

Cameron is right here. As I said above most people in Europe (even those that call themselve conservative) cannot imagine a life without a welfare system. Sweden is special insofar as Swedish culture has this special concept of 'lagom'. This word has no equivalent in other languages (except Norwegian, but Norway was ruled by Sweden for centuries).

Fellowship of the White Rose

Thats a pretty cool idea,

Thats a pretty cool idea, lagom. Its a cultural thing...the people believe it, so it is reflected in the government. Hey..if thats the way they want it, who are we to argue?

I noticed when I toured Germany, Austria, and Czech Republic, they were much more conservative about certain things. They recycle all the soda bottles (like, they wash them out, refill, and reseal them. Very neat idea)...there are windmills EVERYWHERE, their water pressure is alot lower in their showers and sinks, their meal servings are smaller, their cars are smaller and more efficient. In general, they use less, waste less, and recycle more.

We could learn alot from them, if we drop this facade of American exceptionalism and xenophobia.

The Swedes I know no longer live there

to give their thoughts. I only know what they tell me. I do know that Sweden lost quite a bit of tax revenue when one of them left.

I did. I stayed with two

I did. I stayed with two families, each in their forties, and each with young children.

You might want to check their income tax rates.

They are not free.

They seem to be living

They seem to be living pretty nice lives. Maybe for some people, feeding your neighbor is a good pay off for taxes.

two different things

To feel that you are living a pretty nice life (or for you to think that they are living pretty nice lives) is not necessarily the same thing as being free. In fact, most Americans will argue with you that they are free, which is something of a joke.

No one in this world is

No one in this world is free, by your standard.