Debunked: Socialism has never worked

[Teallaura]

I'm not sure what's wrong with you and with your reading comprehension.

Here is the relevant part:

It's a self-reported number out of 10. And they're giving the average for each country.

That's a very widely used measure in the field because it has proved itself to be (a) easy to collect, and (b) to correlate extremely well with other more difficult and clinical ways of measuring well-being and happiness. Basically it turns out that people are good at knowing how happy they are, so you can just ask them.

That was indeed part of the data collection - and you still haven't read either the study or the part I linked - it's not the ONLY part of the data collection.

Also, it's a cross-sectional measure - not really a good way to compare across borders or time. I get why they did it - don't have major issues with the measure itself - but I'm dubious of what it really tells us beyond the moment - and a single moment is a really bad way to sum up a year.

[Starlight]

Self-reporting is stupid and absolutely unscientific.

No actually. As I've already mentioned, experts in the field have found that self-reported life satisfaction and/or happiness to be useful measures that correlate well with every other way of measuring these things from brain scans on down.

That was indeed part of the data collection - and you still haven't read either the study or the part I linked - it's not the ONLY part of the data collection.

What is your motive for making these false statements about me? I've already told you I've read these studies.

Yes, they collect other data too and observe correlations between 6 variables and the happiness measure, as I have already discussed.

[Tassman]

An income redistribution index shows that countries who redistribute wealth redistribute better. And you don't see any problem with such nonsense measurements?

There's no problem. It's a more accurate assessment of the average measure of achievement in key dimensions of human development in a given population. I.e. a long and healthy life, being well educated and having a decent standard of living. Without it the national average is skewed by the ultra wealthy.

[Sparko]

so if socialism works and you liberals like it so much, why don't you move to one of these great utopian societies instead of living under the crushing weight of Capitalism and Democracy?

[Mountain Man]

so if socialism works and you liberals like it so much, why don't you move to one of these great utopian societies instead of living under the crushing weight of Capitalism and Democracy?

Because socialism only "works" when you define the countless instances when it doesn't work as "not really socialism".

[Starlight]

so if socialism works and you liberals like it so much, why don't you move to one of these great utopian societies instead of living under the crushing weight of Capitalism and Democracy?

? As I've previously mentioned, Democracy is socialistic in the sense that it socializes political power - distributes it to the people. And for the most part the left-wingers here do live in great utopian societies... I live in NZ, Tass in Aus, Leonhard in Denmark... those repeatedly rank in the top 10 countries in the world in international comparisons. An interesting question is: Could they become even better if they were even more socialistic? The evidence suggests the answer is yes.

[Tassman]

so if socialism works and you liberals like it so much, why don't you move to one of these great utopian societies instead of living under the crushing weight of Capitalism and Democracy?

To all intents and purposes Star and I already live in such societies...Australia and NZ respectively.

[Teallaura]

...

What is your motive for making these false statements about me? I've already told you I've read these studies.

Yes, they collect other data too and observe correlations between 6 variables and the happiness measure, as I have already discussed.

Then why did you report the data incorrectly? I took issue with your statement about the data. Noting more.

You harped on only the one part - when I linked to the rest you continued to talk about only the one part - either you didn't read the study, didn't read the post or just didn't understand the issue. I presumed you understood, you answered the post so I supposed you read it - that left the study.

I didn't make any false statements - I drew a rational conclusion from your posts.

[shunyadragon]

Are we distinguishing between 'socialistic' and 'Socialism'? Because Denmark isn't Socialistic in the formal term of the word, though it is socialistic in the informal term.

This is very confusing.

[Starlight]

This is very confusing.

'Socialism' has a very wide spectrum of meaning as a political science term. And there are two terms that are close in meaning but different:
1. Social Democracy
2. Democratic Socialism
The first is what the world-leading modern Western countries like Scandinavia, Aus, NZ, Canada etc are: Democracies, that are capitalist in how their businesses work, but have a strong social safety net and strongly re-distributive taxation policies. To get from that to Democratic Socialism requires going a step further and altering the power-structures of how businesses operate, in such a way that businesses are no longer a capitalist owner giving orders to the workers. There are ways of doing that incrementally: Strong trade unions are an example, where the workers have the power to negotiate deals and conditions with the CEOs, or you can do what Germany does and require that the company board has an employee representative on it, or you can have the business run as a co-operative where employees and/or customers own the business, or you can have an employee share-scheme where employees become part-owners of the business. All those are way of crossing the line from a social democracy to a democratic socialist system.

One option, of course, that is infamous, is to have the government own all the businesses... but that only distributes power to the workers if the government is actually democratic rather than authoritarian (obviously in a dictatorship the workers don't have any more power than they did in capitalism, perhaps less even) and the workers thus get a vote in how the government (and hence their business is run) but that is pretty indirect and in that situation the workers really don't have much power at all over how their own workplace actually functions. This is why modern advocates of socialism tend to be much more focused on local control rather than state-control, because the worker and local community having influence over the companies they work for/live near is more sensible and practical and gives them more relevant freedom and power than them trying to vote for what happens in businesses nationwide. So you're far more likely to see socialists today advocating for trade unions - which lead to workers getting a say in their own company - than for the government to take control of all businesses nationwide.

[Bill the Cat]

No actually. As I've already mentioned, experts in the field have found that self-reported life satisfaction and/or happiness to be useful measures that correlate well with every other way of measuring these things from brain scans on down.

Happiness is seldom a static thing. It's also arbitrary. There simply is no way to validate the truthfulness or accuracy of someone's declaration of how "satisfied" they are. The Amish are typically a very content bunch, yet they have very little in the way of comparable standards of living.

[seer]

Happiness is seldom a static thing. It's also arbitrary. There simply is no way to validate the truthfulness or accuracy of someone's declaration of how "satisfied" they are. The Amish are typically a very content bunch, yet they have very little in the way of comparable standards of living.

I bet Star and the others will agree with this too! Not!

Religious people much happier and have more 'life satisfaction' than others, according to a new study


http://relationshipsinamerica.com/re...happier-people

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-others.html

[Sparko]

? As I've previously mentioned, Democracy is socialistic in the sense that it socializes political power - distributes it to the people. And for the most part the left-wingers here do live in great utopian societies... I live in NZ, Tass in Aus, Leonhard in Denmark... those repeatedly rank in the top 10 countries in the world in international comparisons. An interesting question is: Could they become even better if they were even more socialistic? The evidence suggests the answer is yes.

Yes, Capitalism is actually socialism because it gives power of ownership and production to the people.

You can redefine terms as much as you want Starlight, but the fact is you are constantly complaining about free societies like the USA and capitalism, and promoting socialism, like you do in this thread. You want to live in a socialist utopia and claim that it works? Then go there.

No NZ, the USA, Australia, Denmark, etc are NOT examples of socialism. They have some social programs, like healthcare and welfare, but that is not socialism. Every single socialist country I can think of is actually a totalitarian dictatorship.

The only socialist countries that I can think of that still "work" are China and Cuba. And China is having to become more and more capitalistic to survive and Cuba is pretty much ready to collapse. So pick which one you want and move there.

[Leonhard]

No NZ, the USA, Australia, Denmark, etc are NOT examples of socialism. They have some social programs, like healthcare and welfare, but that is not socialism. Every single socialist country I can think of is actually a totalitarian dictatorship.

Kinda what I was getting at.

[Tassman]

Kinda what I was getting at.