Show me at least one country with socialistic economy having GDP (PPP) per capita as high as developed countries with capitalistic economies like USA, Switzerland, Singapore, Finland, Israel, Japan.
Show me at least one country with socialistic economy having GDP (PPP) per capita as high as developed countries with...
Other urls found in this thread:
GDP is a meme. It means nothing in the real world.
Now fuck off corruption lover. Capitalism lovers such as yourself shouldn't be alive.
Show me a capitalist country with its own space station.
Depends on who you ask honestly.
If you asked a Stalinist or Maoist, they would say that the Soviet Union had a great economy .
If you asked Trotskyists or Luxemburgists, they would say the SU wasn't socialist.
You realize that the USSR had the world's second largest GDP until 1987 right? Also
I specifically asked for GDP (PPP) per capita, not nominal numbers. I understand you don't know the difference between GDP (PPP) per capita and nominal GDP, that's not a reason to shitpost.
May I have statistics where USSR in terms of parameter this thread is about is better than USA?
Again, I have not requested the nominal stats.
Also, your post isn't even about nominal GDP per capita, you're talking about overall GDP not divided by the number of people.
That's still a meme. It means nothing in the real world.
Like i said, you are a corruption lover, you shouldn't be alive.
That corruption talk makes me feel fick with your gdp's, debt, interests, banks, loans, currency, derivatives. Those are all memes, they mean nothing in the real world. Useless garbage to make a few useless cunts to get rich by producing nothing.
I see I need to write it again: thread is about GDP (PPP) per capita. If you don't know what that is - just don't shitpost and hide this thread.
I understand you have the very own kind of real world, just hide the thread then and keep telling yourself "GDP (PPP) per capita means nothing in the real world".
What did he mean by this?
Funjy because aside frommSingapore and certain parts of the USA, those countries respect labourers and thir rights
Makes you think
No they are just limitted you dumbfuck
Is just a different way of measuring GDP, but it's still GDP.
Here's the thing: GDP is only really meaningful in a Capitalist economy, and it's absolutely useless for comparing Socialism to Capitalism. GDP measures the raw economic power of a nation (how much value in goods it produces, how much value in services it provides), which is determined by a lot of things, and which differs wildly even in Capitalist countries (all those 3rd world nations? They're Capitalist).
Comparing a socialist Nigeria to a Capitalist US (for example), is absolutely pointless, since that country isn't ever gonna reach parity with the US (especially if the geopolitical circumstances are the same).
Finally, GDP says almost nothing about the quality of life, because it's an average. If you have a country of two people; one who earns 2 million dollars and another who earns nothing, then the GDP per Capita would be 1 million. A better way would be to look at median wages (PPP), income distribution, and the actual fucking services that are available to the average person.
Again: I'm not talking about nominal GDP per capita.
Literally any kind of socialism you guys are into here to if it doesn't include "socialist" Scandinavian countries since their economies are capitalistic lol.
Economists do use a lot of different parameters to know the full picture. None of the parameters is perfect on its own, but GDP (PPP) per capita is definitely the sanest parameter to compare countries with and its calculation methodology improves all the time.
Yugoslavia during their initial 10 year growth.
Sources please. Even if Yugoslavian economy grew like the fastest of capitalist economies ever (which is unlikely) it's still impossible to make poor country rich in just 10 years. It takes far more time.
I genuinely love these analogies with no sense, you should make more of them to entertain me. Go ahead.
Its really not. Anything that uses avarages is by definition a shit measure for anything that has a wide range.
It makes perfect sense. If you have two countries, one country generally gets the short end of the stick and the other generally the long end, which one do you think is going to say "fuck this shit im trying something else"?
Citation needed. Like I said before, GDP is only really good for comparing raw economic power, which is only one way of comparing economies.
Take the US, for example. The US has one of the highest GDP (PPP) per Capita, but a large portion of its population live below the poverty line, and the society is hugely unequal. The reason the GDP per capita is so high is that there are a bunch of people and companies there with an income to match the GDP of entire countries. The numbers say nothing of that, which is why socialists dismiss GDP, since they're more concerned with the overall welfare of people than the performance of corporations.
Meanwhile, Denmark (not at all a socialist nation, but it's better on some socialist issues) has a lower GDP per capita, but it has a markedly better quality of life and has a smaller gap between rich and poor. Again, GDP says nothing about that.
Now which is more important: the performance of the industry, or the welfare of the people?
Dont bother comrade, he is just going to switch arguments all the time.
If you ask him this he is just going to respond tha "muh soviets falsified performance reports" because its good propaganda and the usa did the same with their picture of how the american worker lived.
Show me at least one country with socialistic economy.
Why are you comparing countries that have been industrializing for 300 years to ones that were still industrializing when they were socialism? This doesn't prove anything.
We Soviets actually did a lot of falsification in all possible statistics. I mentioned Bolonkin and his book about falsification, can provide this to you. You should be able to read Russian with a translator.
Literally in the first post of this thread there were Singapore, Israel and Japan (totally shitty country before the end of 19 century, rapid post-WW2 growth). Also in case you didn't know during that your precious "300 years of industrializing" growth was incredibly slow. 1% growth a year was a fantastic result reached only by few most developed countries in the most successful years of 19 century. Second half of 20 century, this is when real growth started.
I already wrote "Literally any kind of socialism you guys are into here to if it doesn't include "socialist" Scandinavian countries since their economies are capitalistic lol". But you're one of those guys saying "socialism has never been tried".
Your example is really bad since the poorest part of US citizens aren't your average Murrican in terms of skin color, employment, crime statistics, Autism Level level and so on. You can only get a race bantz with US example.
Again, race bantz.
Show me parameter saner than that, I'm wondering what could it be.
I don't know what are you trying to "prove" with that, you're just typing words with no meaning in terms of polemics.
Well for starters, there has never been, not can there ever be, a "socialist country": socialism cannot be anything but global.
But more importantly: socialism is moneyless! A "socialist country's GDP" doesn't make any sense!
Ok m8, "not real socialism" and "has never been tried". I understood you.
Wait, are you OP, or are you a guy who is making fun of OP?
But more importantly: socialism is moneyless! A "socialist country's GDP" doesn't make any sense!
Goddamnit, anarkiddy. Let the grownups mock OP.
There isn't any because Socialism isn't a fucking focus of profit and how much money people have you mongoloid.
Might as well ask us to show you a ruler that measures wind speed.
making fun of
IHDI, in which the U.S. lags behind five ex-socialist countries (Poland, Slovenia, Hungary, Czech Republic and Estonia).
OP, quick question, why do you want statistics on a "socialist country" if you can't even name one socialist country.
Also, why is it every time we talk about how socialism does work, you people sya "Well we actually need socialism, but socialism like scadinavia" and then the next time you go "See dumb commies hypercapitalist sweden is doing much better than your socialist countries which I can't even name one of".
All you're doing in this thread is switching sides, calling things "you're just saying stuff without meaning", writing memes and just being intelectually dishonest, just so you can be smug and feel like you have proven yourself right in your belief that we are wrong somehow.
Actually make that six since I forgot Slovakia.
See, that's where you are not making a good argument
I don't think you can compare countries that received gibs from the United States during the Marshall plan with countries that were in opposition. 20th century socialism was a bunch of unindustrialized nations in opposition against the most powerful nations in the world.
I just think it's dishonest to compare these vastly different situations. I'd like you to show me a socialist country that wasn't in constant opposition to the West. Allende was overthrown by a coup, you can't go to bat against major imperial powers. Cuba is estimated to have lost 1 trillion in U.S. due to the embargo. However, Singapore had the same economy as Yugoslavia till the 1980's, as did Israel.
Please tell me - if IHDI is so important and parameter this thread is about isn't important at all, how come more people are leaving countries like Poland to live in US than US citizens are emigrating to a countries like Poland?
I see we have another "not real socialism"-kid here, ok dude. Wish you a nice day too.
Why? A small country like Cuba have received so much help from USSR that Russia has forgiven 90% of Cuban debt they couldn't give away in 2014. That was 32 billion dollars. No one knows how much money overall were included in all those years - again, that's only a small Cuba.
I'd also like you to show me a capitalist country that wasn't in constant opposition to the East.
Name me a single better parameter, I'd stick to it then.
No. Really. Give me one country where they implemented socialism. Go ahead, if you can find me one where it fits this simple defintion:
then I will consider the rest of your rationale.
Russia wasn't nearly as rich as the United States. It's not comparable to the Marshall Plan.
Are you baiting right now?
There are a lot of socialist sects that were never tried. ML is the only one been tried widespread.
Most people from Eastern Europe are moving to Western Europe, not the U.S.
holy shit, does that mean there's different branches within socialism?!?!?!
But those countries don't have capitalism, they have crony corporatism.
Has never been tried m8, I already got your position.
That wasn't "Russia", that was entire USSR. And US government wasn't as retarded as USSR in terms of altruism, I wrote in a very same post you answered to the size of help they forgiven to Cuba only in 2014, overall numbers were bigger. This is a fucktone of money, but Cuba and other countries that were getting USSR help are still poor.
Why do you think so? There were a lot of pro-USA countries and a lot of pro-USSR countries, if pro-USSR countries would show a decent economy growth (like those dirty capitalists) that would be a headache for US geopolitics.
That doesn't disprove my words since these most people still are moving to a richer countries despite having no worse IHDI at their homelands. Slovenians are better in terms of IHDI than Brits and worse in terms of GDP (PPP) per capita - I doubt a lot of Brits are leaving their country for Slovenia.
If you would be such a good boy that reads the thread before posting you'd see I specifically allowed to use country with any branch of socialism if only it doesn't have capitalistic economy.
Well if you admit that a socialist economy has not existed then why did you make this post?
>I already got your position
Don't know if you're kidding me or you're that stupid for real.
I'm just asking you to find me a country that fits the description you put in your own bloody post. Give me the socialist economy.
What's the point of GDP if a small minority hoards more capital than they could ever use?
someone post the gif
you know which one
Got its riches through high finance and imperialism
Got its richest through being essentially one large money laundering unit, that is up in the mountains with an armed population.
Has a strictly controlled market with an extremely strong state.
TBH don't know much about Finland but I'm guessing there is oil and banks there
I wander if this could have anything to do with it being a giant military base subsidised by the US/EU?
Imperial power pumped full of cash by America to make it a buffer state after the second world war.
Only a part of them were seized and nationalized, not put under control of the workers.
Thats not what socialism is. Socialism is where the people own the means of production. Otherwise it is state capitalism. Thats litterally the definition, where the state owns the means of production.
No its not, Miriam web dictionairy is a piece of shit dictionairy and has many errors. It is not a well respected dictionairy at all. Using wikipedia gives you more accurate results as you can find sources as to why the definition is the way it is, whereas on that website the authors just put shit in and gullible people believe it just like they believe everything they see on tv.
Western Europe has a higher IHDI than Eastern Europe. So they're moving from lower IHDI countries to higher ones.
How about instead of childish Holla Forums tier image and gif posting we try to talk ideas and stuff out with each others ?
I only ask you to answer these 3 question if your time and mood allow you to do so
1-Did venezuela give the workers the means of production ? if so post proofs.
1a-If they did so, was the the while instrument of the economic system ? or just a small numbers here and there?
1b-If not were they planing to do so ?
If the answer is yes it was socialism then
2-Do you think that the economic down fall of Venezuela is caused by the model of socialist production or capitalist factors "like oil prices"
3-What do you know the capitalist infrastructure "or the lack of it" of Venezuela? is it strong enough to give rise to a socialist worker economy ?
Stop playing stupid ffs. I specifically wrote about Slovenia since it's 12 in IHDI ranking and UK's rank is 13. Poland has 27 rank, USA 28. Now give me statistics about Slovenians leaving Slovenia for UK/UK citizens leaving UK for Slovenia, and the same about Poland-USA.
>not real socialism
It's kinda sad how people like you don't see the weakness of their own words-juggling. There were shitload of socialist countries grabbing businesses away from their owners and trying literally all possible variations of management on them, but suddenly none of them had real socialism. Using the same pattern as you anyone can "prove" that there was no real capitalism, no real Christianity etc. You're calling USA capitalist? US were never really capitalist, because according to my definition of capitalism real capitalism is where really perfect competition exists. Nothing is real guys.
It has been tried with wildly varying success, with few failures being decisive, and no, Venezuela was not socialism by the objective definition.
Arguments you don't like are not cliches.
When has it ever been tried?
Honestly asking, I'm pretty ignorant.
Who cares about definitions?
Feels >> reals
We don't oppose perfect capitalism, we oppose private ownership of the means of production. The word capitalism just happens to be used to describe it. I don't care what you call it.
The very idea that one can "try" a type of society, be it socialism, capitalism, feudalism or whatever, is utterly stupid by any Marxist standard tbh.
A revolution can be tried though (eg: October and the USSR).
Oh look, it's another "fuckwit OP thinks that Not Socialism is Socialism and demands that Holla Forums defend Not Socialism" thread.
I couldn't find anything relating to specifically Slovenian immigration to the UK, most of it comes from Poland and other a Eastern Euro countries.
The U.S. doesn't keep emigration records, so you can't really know who is leaving and why.
I see that you didn't answer the questions and that bring sadness to heart ;_;
For sure compromises will be made we are not utopian my friend BUT if the main point and the main call and main economic and political is not there that is not fair to call it what it claims
What if i made a system with no wage labor ? will you call that capitalism ?
If the answer is no, because wage labor is one of the most elementary characteristics to capitalist system then why calling any system that don't give the means of production to the workers socialism ?
user.. i really want to work it out with you and you just feels a bit hostile about it.
If you had read Capital you would know that it is precisely this "real capitalism" that Marx considered in his works, and this is precisely from this basis that he deduced the contradictions of capitalism and the necessity of communism.
But yet again, that is if you had read Capital.
Youre not making it easier for yourself user
OP, how about comparing third world countries to third world countries and when a communist revolution happens in (for instance) Britain, we get back to your question?
Well now that all depends on that average values you're using. Mean isn't so useful on its own, but add median and standard deviation into the mix and it paints a pretty solid picture.
Either way, it still makes no sense to talk about GDP in a moneyless society.
So I created this thread to search for the "success". Give me only one example of socialistic economy having fairly high GDP (PPP) per capita.
Let's say your definition of perfect capitalism differs from mine.
What are those "main" things about Christianity as an example? Christians could easily use the same "has never been tried" arguments as you:
>smug Christian "no-no, those weren't real Christians because…"
I just want you to understand the stupidity of the "all those socialist countries weren't really socialist"-approach. Repeating it in the another topics shows the absurdness pretty well.
We aren't talking about third world countries, I want you to show me first world countries that aren't capitalistic.
Socialism is meant to eliminate the need for constant, uncontrolled growth. Here's a good example of a socialist success though: quora.com
I'm not sure what currency has to do with anything. OP asked about socialism. We're pretty far from getting rid of money if such a thing is even possible.
Well then you are stupid. By our own admission, we have no success to show off for.
There's been plenty of successes, just not usually at a nation-wide level. Mondragon region in Spain, northern Italy, New York cooperatives, etc. Yugoslavia worked pretty well though, so they say.
If some one is worshiping Satan or Greek gods will you count that as Christianity ? why ? because one of the MAIN characteristic of Christianity is not there "ae believe in a divine God that is Omnibenevolence for example"
Does this example satisfy you ?
Yugoslavia was shit and trailed behind the Eastern Bloc in every economic indices.
Buddy this is the very definition of socialism: classless, stateless, moneyless.
More than that: this is only because it is moneyless (in fact, tradeless) that it can be classless, and thus stateless.
All I find is American anti-communist propaganda!!!
And yet, before Tito died, stability and quality of life were lightyears ahead.
These are not examples of socialism.
Comrade, stability and quality of life in UK nowadays are lightyears ahead of what they were by Marx's time. This doesn't make UK socialist in any way.
Of course not.
So you are simply denying any economical measurements of success? Ok bro, good for you.
Well at least you admit it.
This example does not satisfy me, it's retarded tbh. According to you "one of the MAIN characteristics" is enough to count anything as a good example, but it isn't.
People have been explaining to you that we haven't even succeeded in getting to socialism yet for hours now.
Yes, socialism fails at being capitalism. I have no qualms admitting that.
Once again, you prove your illiteracy: communism is the abolition of economy.
The GDP is the US is so high because the rich people are so goddamn rich, meanwhile the average Joe goes bankrupt if he ever falls ill
That's communism dummy, the theoretical global condition thought to come after lots of socialism. There's no such thing as a singular communist nation.
I've been explaining that "has never been tried"-excuse can apply to literally everything which causes total chaos. That's why this approach is bad.
1. We were discussing socialism or a communism?
2. What do you mean by the "economy"? I can "prove" communism is the abolishing of economy as well as it isn't. Your post has no sense m8.
Socialism is democratic ownership of the means of production. Markets may not be very good thing but socialism does not prescribe their presence or absence.
Keynes happened, there aren't any because of that.
This is a troll. Seriously, just end this thread.
Cubas standard of living wasn't that bad when the USSR was around, but that's besides the point. The USSR was not as rich as the United States and Western Europe before or after WW2. You keep trying to make comparisons that don't make any godamm sense. The "entire USSR" still had about 100 million less people than the United States alone.
Same thing with the "name one not in opposition to the East". Are you seriously comparing the strength of the United States and the hegemony they had over the rich nations in NATO, with the Warsaw Pact? They aren't comparable, in neither size nor strength other than the USSR having shitty nukes.
Here you shot yourself in the foot, Twice.
"human main characteristic is breathing"
therefor hamster is human
You present this example as a false example
This example and it's contented falsity give even more space for "not real human" and the whole of "Not real ___" you are here
You know that both humans and hamsters share breathing AND YET you chose to make them not
You fucked up the chose of the category "all animals do break"
You fucked up the chose of the dynamic of the example REINFORCING MY POINT EVEN FURTHER
user i beg of you don't be one of those, i will argue with you because i want to disagree with you.
sleeping time has come i guess
Should say 30 million. Also, do you into basic logistics? Cuba can't do nearly as much trade with Russia as Hungary can. Cuba like any economy, mostly relies on trade with countries around it which were all United States puppet regimes, like Pinichet (where Chile enjoyed a lower standard under Pinochet than Cuba despite all this).
Titoists are grotesque creatures.
You're doing that "not real capitalism"-thing I was joking about. But without any joking.
I already wrote in this very thread USSR was more generous comparable to US.
Wut? USSR had more people not to mention its satellites (Poland and other countries like that weren't technically in USSR).
>Are you seriously comparing the strength of the United States and the hegemony they had over the rich nations in NATO
Again, I already wrote in this very thread real economy growth started after WW2 and if a fucktone of pro-USSR countries managed how to grow they'd fuck up the West good. Surprisingly socialism didn't let them do it despite all the USSR help.
It is a false example, and it's a total analogue of yours you goddamn retard.
Lenin, The State and Revolution:
Socialism is communism, dummy.
K. Marx, Critique of the Gotha programme:
You don't get it: we haven't "tried" communism indeed because the simple idea of "trying" a society doesn't make sense (be it communism, capitalism, feudalism or anything else). We are defined by the society we live in, not the other way around.
No. Such a definition of socialism is not only harmless to capital, but also harmful for actual socialism as it disturbs the proletariat from its historic role.
As a matter of fact, it does. To understand why would require you to read (and understand) Capital, so I'm just gonna leave you with Marx's opinion:
Are you a leftcom?
No, since this word means anything and its contrary.
Well you're definitely a dumbass.
No socialist economies to show you.
USSR (when it could be called socialist)had a higher living standard than today's third world countries
Cuba had better living standards than any other Caribbean country, it might still tbh
Asserting something is not the same as proving it. You did not prove that the United States was less generous, you asserted it. But here, let's pull up statistics.
The U.S. gave about 12 billion dollars to Europe during the four years of the Marshall plan. This is about 120 billion dollars today. This is much less money than the Soviets "gave" to Cuba, which was in line with Western Aid to other South American countries. multinationalmonitor.org
Most of Cuba's sugar was bought by the USSR, and Cuba still haven't recovered from the USSR collapsing and trade dropping drastically.
That being said, I concede that there are no socialist successes. I do think comparing the 20th century socialist economies to Western economies is dishonest. I also don't think ML is socialist, and I believe central planning is inefficient. I advocate for decentralized planning, which no - has never been tried.
When was this?
No, after WWII Japan received peanuts in one-on-one respective comparison with how much France or Germany or any other of the west each received from the Marshall Plan. The inclusion of these countries' companies/stocks/market in the new order was the only thing kind of similar America sorta did for Japan.
This actually isn't very fair of a way to compare. Many socialist countries were formed from poor countries and not fully industrialized before they even were formed into a socialist country. Other cases they broke off from a larger empire so their single country cant be compared to the larger empire before it even with PPP because it doesnt mean they wound up with an equal share of means of production. A fair comparison would require comparing countries of similar development level and similar time frame from start of it's formation.
A mass collision is a good way to artificially raise the GDP.
Or a brawl among spectacle wearers.
Excluding African forever-shitholes: was an Eastern Germany poor? Maybe Czechoslovakia with almost the same wealth before WW2 as Austria was poor? Maybe Cuba was poor and undeveloped (here's a short list of Cuba's achievements before Castro, use a translator: prognadzvy4ajn.livejournal.com
What is ML? Are you talking about 1961+ years? Because according to International Labour Organization in 1958 Cuba was one of the wealthiest countries in the world and now after socialism has took its place it's a total shithole despite all the help they had.
It stands for Marxism-Leninism and refers to Stalinism, which is actually neither Marxist nor Leninist, but preempted the terms in the wake of the counter-revolution in Russia.
Well we in post-Soviet countries aren't making "МЛ"-abbreviation, it's just called Marxism-Leninism. Now I'll know what that means.
these are a lot of posts to read through
will someone be kind enough to direct me where OP's question is actually answered? this is interesting
My question wasn't answered. Only some user told "Yugoslavia during their initial 10 year growth" with no sources for this claim - it would be weird if any valid sources existed because no country ever can become rich in just 10 years lol.
It was answered several times:
- there has never been a socialist country;
- there can never be socialism in one country;
- a socialist society cannot have a GDP anyway, since it is by definition moneyless.
You simply don't like the answer because it doesn't fit your "social = biggovernment lol" vision.
Literacy rates in 1959 was between 60-75% and Fidel brought it to 99%. You have no idea what you're talking about. Living standards did increase in Cuba under "Communism", being "wealthy" - I'd like you to source this. I also provided links detailing Cuba's help from Russia which wasn't that significant and some of the shortcomings in the economy. Please don't be a retard.
The USSR in the 60s had a fairly high standard of living:
The author actually didn't write this passage as a defense of the USSR, but rather as a criticism of it, because he believed it was developing a labor aristocracy typical of the Western imperialist nations.
The money wage of the average Soviet worker was on par with Israel and Argentina, two nations that were developed nations but comparatively "poor" in comparison with the Western average. But the author correctly points out that the money-wage wasn't the only way the Soviet worker got paid, and most economists when pressed acknowledge this but disagree on how to calculate it.
Had the post-Stalin leadership persisted with policies designed to continually reduce consumer goods prices then the real standard of living would've probably been much higher imo. Economic growth would've been shared more equitably as well and the economy would've likely grown faster and more efficiently as well.
Of course that is a hypothetical but the facts are that the USSR and the US had roughly comparable economies in 1989. First pic is from wikipedia and the source for the second pic is the CIA factbook.
He doesn't like it because there's merit to the point of view that the 20th century becomes nonsensical when it's devoid of socialism "by definition".
Were all centuries from 1st to 19th "nonsensical" as well? Because they for sure didn't feature socialism.
There was socialism in the 19th century. Otherwise Marx would have had nothing to critique.
Do I even want to know what is going on here?
This question presupposes that Socialist states become Socialist irrespective of their wealth. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is poverty of the population that drives the Revolution.
It is weakness of the government (and Capitalists), that lets Revolution take hold.
Consequently, it's not wealthy and prosperous nations that turn to Socialism. It's the poorest and most desperate.
How can you expect any of those poorest nations to surpass the wealthiest within such a short period - because, historically speaking, Socialism is recent, it hasn't been a century since the first nation went Socialist?