Nope has not happened. nations with socialism tend to get poorer as a whole.
the only sort of socialistic behavior that I have heard about working is relatively poor uneducated countries paying families checks to send thier children to school.
this however is a short term increase and eventually the nation will stabilize and such benefits would either no longer become necessary or would become far to pricy to maintain. as a short term work(lasting maybe 30 years) its a smart plan.
I think Barack Obama is aiming towards an international government (which is where we're heading anyway), and for a more honesty with the people (as in, less propaganda). Without Socialism, the rich people would just get richer and the poor people would just get more poor. Does that make any sense?
You think the man who claimed his election would "slow the rise of the oceans" is seeking more honesty?
You think the man who used taxpayer money to buy signs trumpeting his presidency to place at every public road project is seeking less propaganda? You think the guy who did this [link] is trying to tone down the propaganda? Are you fucking insane? Or are you just completely deceived by all the propaganda?
When he was first running for president, he said he wanted a more clear government. I know he isn't the best president in the world, but he's a hell lot better than the ones who have been running before him. I have a lot of sources and evidence to back up my claims, but I don't have the time to pull all the links up for you (sorry!).
lol, he makes a lot of claims. Lying through his teeth. Like when he said "the ObamaCare individual mandate is not a tax," and then sent his lawyers to defend the law in court precisely as a tax. [link]
Honestly, there is one good thing Hitler did, and that was abolishing the class system. And if you understand German, lack-Angel-Dan: has a very good joke about it. Hitler hat alle Stände abgeschafft: den Wohlstand und den Anstand. übrig bleibt nur der Notstand.
Now let's build an Autobahn. It's the solution to everything.
That really depends on your definition of 'socialism' and of 'rich country'.
If you call the Obama government socialist, then most of the countries can be called socialist. If you mean by 'rich country' the highest standard of living for the most people in that country (and not a very high standard of living for only a few people) then there are dozens and dozens of countries doing quite well.
Sweety, you have to remember. The American right is alone in the world. All alone. And one day... Well, let's not spoil the surprise.
Socialism or any other "ism" for that matter has never been proposed or instituted as a means of just governance. The purpose of these "isms" is power, all the power and wealth of a nation in the hands of a few, and tyranny/poverty inflicted on the many. Thus it has always been!
Honestly, i think different ideologies motivate different changes in society, but the desired outcome is largely similar. Perhaps that's why whether it's Bill Clinton's Demoractic political stand or Reagan's Republican stand, the economic progress achieved under their terms of office were similar. I couldn't imagine any philosopher coming up with an ideology that would worsen his people's welfare (yes, even Hilter did not).
Perhaps, the main factor that influence the ability of an ideology like Socialism to better the welfare of a society lies in the capability of the leaders of that particular idea.
The elite were composed of jews, for historical reasons, and he killed them. And those he didn't he drove out of business. Imagine the USA with all people from silicon valley gone. Then he put all of the economic power of the country into a war, which he didn't even win. Germany was so bad off after the war, it's a suprise that they're back on their legs. Thankfully the USA and UK saw that a powerful Germany is much more useful then a poor one.
Yes, but there's a different between intention and outcomes of actions. His initial intention wasn't to worsen his people's welfare, was it?
That's the whole point about ideologies. They preach about good intention and motivate changes towards their desired outcomes. However, the practicality of those changes and their final outcomes vary depending on the leadership.
In Argentina's case, they completely switched national ideologies around 1900. It's not like they had excellent leaders before 1900 and terrible leaders from then on. The big change was in their national ideology, switching it to a very socialist one.
I would say the US has gone through a massive historical revisionism within the last 30+ years. The US of the 19th century (a fast developing country and very protectionist) shared more similarities with today's China (another fast developing country and also protectionist but less so than the 19th century US), but not the 19th century Great Britain (then the proponent of 'free market') insofar as industrial policies and the degree of government interventionism are concerned. But this sort of historical subject is not much talked about outside those who study the economy of developing countries.
The United States was founded as a libertarian nation. Liberty was the primary purpose of the federal government in its inception. Starting at the beginning of the 20th century, that liberty started being severely supplanted by socialism. The worst offenders in that respect were Wilson, Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter, and now Obama. Out of those, Obama and FDR take the top two spots for "most socialist." It is this sort of authoritarianism that has been leading our country towards decline. The country is now at its greatest point of socialism, it's greatest point of authoritarianism that it has ever been at.
You're dreaming. 1) You are completely avoiding my point, that the policies of one of the most celebrated presidents by republicans were, in fact, more left-winged than Obama's policies. 2) Roosevelt made the American economy flourish, if anything. He got three terms for a reason. 3) The reason the economy collapsed on itself is mainly, because banks could do whatever the heck they wanted. They were enabled to play a very dangerous game with the money of millions of people, and they lost it. There were hardly any rules. Several members of the Bush administration have admitted they saw this coming, but they did nothing. They were preaching freedom, while in reality they were simply afraid to lose their sponsors.
1) Richard Nixon is not celebrated. He's hated by Democrats and Republicans alike. 2) Roosevelt got three terms because the media was so in-love for him that they were overlooking the fact that the Depression was unprecedented in the lack of recovery. 3) That's not why the economy collapsed. This exact type of collapse had never happened before, even before all those regulations that you think are saving you. What caused the economic collapse was government programs forcing lending to risky interest groups, for the sake of racially-motivated purposes. [link]
Recently a nice article appeared about how the internet radicalizes people. You see, based on what the person searches frequently, search engines try to find results that are relative to this person's interests. This results in search engines filtering out information that is 'different', so that the user is more likely to read what they want to read. Because people have a tendency to prefer content that confirms their ideas, they will get this kind of content more often than that, that opposes their ideas. The more the user is exposed to their own ideas (and the less to others), the more their suspicions are confirmed and the circle is complete.
What I'm trying to ask is: when is the last time you have touched a sufficient amount of books and objective articles about the matter?
The same can be said then about capitalist nations; the fact that USA is a super-power doesn't mean that there aren't lots of persons living in the street or caravans, or that money isn't poorly distributed. In fact, the poorest person in USA was probably far worse than the poorest person in the USSR.
Also, even if common people wasn't rich, they were still much more prosperous than in tsarist times, and a country that had advanced weapons, a strong military and competed in the space career certainly had resources.
In the 1980s, the US was the most powerful and prosperous country in the world. Only recently have we begun to lose that advantage, due to our abandonment of economic liberties over the last 12 years. [link]
What does it matter if the country has advanced weapons if the vast majority of people have nothing more than the bare necessities of survival, and have to stand in absurdly long lines even for that?
Countries of Northern Europe are more prosperous than USA and have many socialist policies. And developing advanced weapons or space satellites is a sign of wealth, indeed. You can argue that they used that wealth for bad purposes, instead of improving people's lives, but in any case, a poor country can't start space programs like the ones they had in the USSR.
Also, when speaking of living conditions in Russia under socialism, you have to compare it with living conditions in Russia before socialism, not with the standards of other countries. Between tsarist Russia and USSR there was a major improvement, and it was due to socialism. USSR didn't turn into the wealthiest country in the world, of course, but you have to think about the starting point: an under-developed, backwards country with poor technology, not a rich one. And the poorest countries in the world don't have a socialist background. They have a colonialist past. You could ask what good has done capitalism to them.
Speaking now about my own country, the policies of Primo de Rivera in Spain during the 20's had a strong element of socialism, and they led to big economical growth and improvement in living conditions, not to impoverishment.
is quite funny that you say that capitalism has helped a country to grow bigger. I am from Chile (that's whay my english is horrible, sorry) and my country has been capitalism for the past decades, and yeah, the stadicts and official information says that this country is the most developed in South America and that we are one of the biggest economies here as well. BUT everyday we can see how the rich get richer and the poor poorer. The problem with education here is awful. Everything belongs to the privates, and the privates seems to enjoy watching the middle-class people working like dogs and get sunken in debts. Capitalism hasn't help my people at all. It has sunken us in misery. One thing is was the papers says, and other completly different is what reallity is. This doesn't answer your question but I just wanted to make this point clear. Have you ever read Serges Latouche?? He has a very interesting theory that can displace capitalism and socialism as systems.
Maybe Sweden, Finland, and Iceland are about it. Every other attempt at Socialism failed because the people were not ready for socialism. Socialism has been tried elsewhere and failed such as in Greece with its 30% unemployment and bankrupt government. Must be some common experience with the Nordic people that allows socialism to work with them. Could be that in pre-modern times the Nordics had to live in tight quarters with many other people to survive the long winters. Socialism 'could' work if people were not greedy, lazy, and corrupt enough to abuse the system. Welfare queens with 10 kids kind of break the system and so does flat out corruption and grift. A lot of people got rich by spending other people's money.