In order to reduce poverty indicator, there are only socialist policies. But in the reality, if we look at Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland… and other similar places… it is more related with GDP and GDP per capita, the reduction of poverty.
Many socialist policies are implemented in Cuba and Venezuela, but poverty and extreme poverty is overwhelming.
1 Like
As well, unemployment with a really high GDP is still quite high.
The private sector could absorb all the labour force.
2 Likes
This is an issue that others have brought up as well. GDP needs to have a much greater impact on unemployment, with a maxed out GDP typically creating a labour shortage. Additionally, poverty should have a stronger reaction to unemployment, and less reaction to direct government programs.
1 Like
It’s more just welfare than socialism. You’re putting money into the hands of people to make their ends meet and telling them to go spend which boosts the economy further lowering poverty.
It’s demand side economics.
3 Likes
Discarding the necessity for this game to qualify both capitalist and socialist resolutions, and that good wages and social security are associated with the left wing, and not actual examples of socialism, Singapore, Hong Kong and Switzerland all have strong poverty reducing measures generally in advance of those seen in America and several developed neoliberal-leaning European states.
Germany and the Nordic countries are thick with socialist politics – holdovers of the wildly successful brand of post-war European economics and the American school of economics we saw the death of in the late 20th century, which featured massive public spending programs and nationalised organisations, the likes of which are often accused of being far-left examples of Communism by modern Western populism, despite being remembered as “the golden age of capitalism”.
Capitalism thrives in many corners of the developing world and yet extreme poverty can also be seen there. China and Vietnam have vanishingly low poverty rates far in advance of their capitalist peers.
2 Likes
But their systems are still capitalist. Although I imagine that they are developing capitalism, so to speak, so it’s still Marxism what they’re doing? I guess their argument would be that Capitalism was not developed like how Marx wanted it to be, before their communist revolutions brought in socialism.
1 Like
Yes, absolutely. But if the modern conversation that identifies public spending, welfare, and nationalised industries as socialism is to be taken as read, many systems in this world resemble such a dichotomy, and do very well with such arrangements.
Of course the wider conversation, outside of these populist definitions defines Marxism and classical socialism is something wholly alien to the modern world. It is an almost two century old school of thought afterall.
1 Like
Hmmmmmm…those are valid points, I guess things evolve with time, and that’s how they should be, I guess. Many socialists today have reconciled reform over revolution, so I guess capitalism is part of socialism. So to speak. They’re interconnected. Without Capitalism there could be no Socialism and vice-versa.
1 Like
Exactly. As Sanders and AOC enjoy pointing out, the industry stimulus and bailouts capitalists enjoy so much are thoroughly socialist concepts in direct opposition to the free market. They’re simply benefiting the economy from the top-down.
It’s not socialism capitalists have a problem with, it’s the dismissal of the profit-motive and the democratisation of capital.
1 Like
Those subsidies are important, as long as everybody else gets their fair share.
Wouldn’t that just make them against Socialism?
2 Likes
Well then one would hope they’d stick to their guns and refuse bailouts, tax breaks and subsidies rather than accept socialism for the rich. Unfortunately, ours is not a culture of intellectual honesty.
2 Likes