Historically, has socialism ever lifted a country out of poverty?


TBSchemer's avatar
Ever?

Because I just found this [link] and I'm wondering what sort of evidence motivates the thinking of people like Francois Hollande and Barack Obama. What I'm looking for is a real historical example of nationalizations, redistributions, or centralizations of power bringing a poor nation to wealth and prosperity.

Wouldn't you agree that such examples should exist in a world where socialism of any kind (democratic or otherwise) actually works to the benefit of the people?
Comments303
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
OmicronWanderer's avatar
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.
witwitch's avatar
Yes, it has happened. Less than 100 years ago, the country of Finland was formed when they broke away from Russia. At the time their country was composed almost entirely of peasant farmers.

Now Finland is a first world nation, a world player, in the top three for highest standard of living, and it has one of the best education systems on the planet. There is almost no poverty here.

Did I mention they've been Socialist since they were formed? Even the most right wing Finnish political party is still left of the American Democrats.
Frozenglyph's avatar
Nordic countries and north-west (central) europe.
katamount's avatar
Yes, it's called Social Security: [link]
AstralChrist's avatar
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?
TBSchemer's avatar
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?
AstralChrist's avatar
Language, language... ^_^'

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!).
TBSchemer's avatar
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]

Obama never stops lying.
AstralChrist's avatar
We wouldn't do any better with Romney.
der-freishutz's avatar
yes. national socialism.
TBSchemer's avatar
Switching from leftist socialism to national socialism ended Germany's inflation crisis, but the nationalization of industries wasn't really helping them get out of poverty.
der-freishutz's avatar
It helped alot though, the building of the roads and such.
TBSchemer's avatar
But at such great costs, economic and otherwise.
Honestly, there is one good thing Hitler did, and that was abolishing the class system. And if you understand German, :Black-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.
honestly, :black-angel-dan:
:iconblack-angel-dan:
whatever. I'm too used to [BB] or better yet,
honestly, :black-angel-dan:
:iconblack-angel-dan:
whatever. I'm too used to [BB] or better yet,
DutchConnaisseur's avatar
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. :-)
DefineDeviancyDown's avatar
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!
LangBam's avatar
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.
Hitler did worsen his peoples welfare. Really, he did.
LangBam's avatar
okay, how so?
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.
LangBam's avatar
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.
TBSchemer's avatar
And yet, there are civilizations that have gone from being very rich to very poor through a relatively short historical period. Argentina is a great example of this.