NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think it should stay, or go?

for those who dont know, mind explaining the "neo-liberal economic model"

Neoliberalism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)

It's basically Thatcherism or Reaganomics.

Indeed. I've not a clue as to what you're on about. Are you using the American definition of Liberal (equivalent to the European definition of Socialist) or the European definition of Liberal (Antisocial rich guy who does not care about civil rights for those who don't have an amount of money with atleast six numbers and wants the government to let him use child workers and stay out of his business)?

The European definition may be from the 19th century, but what the heck.

American conservatives are liberal in this context.

Liberalism is freedom.

Please make it go away!
...Not that I think it will in my lifetime...
Capitalist pigdogs.

Liberalism is freedom.Whereas Neo-Liberalism is the economic enslavement, oppression & abuse of all resources, human or otherwise.

It's better than any other model we have besides pure liberalism. Until the world is globalized enough for free competition to reign over the markets, we have no other option that will work. Socialism and populism failed miserably, protectionism brought the Depression, mercantilism was a disaster and we're still feeling the imperialism hangover.

Neoliberalism is a transitionary system; it's neither desirable nor sustainable as a means in itself but it is an necessity of economic evolution.

Please make it go away!
...Not that I think it will in my lifetime...
Capitalist pigdogs.

But being a Capitalist Pigdog (?) is so much fun!

But being a Capitalist Pigdog (?) is so much fun!

What can I say? Capitalist pigdogs like having regular supplies of food, housing, and consumer goods! We also don't like to wait a decade to get a car or an apartment! Plus, I prefer them to last for more than a few months and not to give off toxic fumes or radiation...

I heart reaganomics!

What can I say? Capitalist pigdogs like having regular supplies of food, housing, and consumer goods! We also don't like to wait a decade to get a car or an apartment! Plus, I prefer them to last for more than a few months and not to give off toxic fumes or radiation...
You like keeping those amenities away from the majority of the populace if at all possible too. But when you are the elite, why bother with the petty, right?

I heart reaganomics!

It's thus apparent you weren't there to live it.

What can I say? Capitalist pigdogs like having regular supplies of food, housing, and consumer goods! We also don't like to wait a decade to get a car or an apartment! Plus, I prefer them to last for more than a few months and not to give off toxic fumes or radiation...

Plus, we get to oppress the proletariat. That's more fun than kicking a puppy!

It's thus apparent you weren't there to live it.
Or else he was in the top 1% in wealth of the nation at the time. Those people seemed to love it. I wonder why... :rolleyes:

Whereas Neo-Liberalism is the economic enslavement, oppression & abuse of all resources, human or otherwise.

Because the evil fat cats are forcing laborers in the turd world to work for subsistence wages, right? :rolleyes:

You like keeping those amenities away from the majority of the populace if at all possible too. But when you are the elite, why bother with the petty, right?

You mean like the socialists and populists did? They had an entire second economy dedicated to purveying expensive imported luxuries to the party elite at the tax and labor expense of the rest of the population, and managed to destroy the middle class as well. Don't forget the people who starved or who were shipped off to labor camps or prisons!

Plus, 2.3 billion Chinese and Indians being lifted out of socialist poverty and in to the middle class to join the 1.2 billion in the OECD is a pretty solid defense of free trade and capitalism. Don't forget the former Soviet Union, who are finally able to use their resources to develop their economies rather than have them stolen by the Soviet government. More people have more access to better goods and services under free-market capitalism than they ever did under socialism or communism.

Or else he was in the top 1% in wealth of the nation at the time. Those people seemed to love it. I wonder why... :rolleyes:

Or else maybe its just you and the rest of you extreme leftist (noted by your political compass) who dont like Reagan just because he was a capitalist. Our country did very well under him AND he got two very large land slide victories during both elections which shows that a vast majority of the American people loved him...hardly 1%.

It's thus apparent you weren't there to live it.

...and what were the glory days to you and your people, FDR's socialist reforms?

Or else he was in the top 1% in wealth of the nation at the time. Those people seemed to love it. I wonder why... :rolleyes:

Of course they loved it, not actually "trickling down" and thus becoming richer and richer, while the poor got poorer and poorer.

...and what were the glory days to you and your people, FDR's socialist reforms?

FDR? Franklin Delano Roosevelt? His reforms virtually had no effect on me, seeing as they were on the other side of the world, over half a century ago.

Or else he was in the top 1% in wealth of the nation at the time. Those people seemed to love it. I wonder why... :rolleyes:

No, if you actually got an education your real income soared. The only people who didn't were the ones without an education, and that's mostlytheir fault, not the economy's. If you want to make money, get an education and work hard; it's not going to be easy, but it works.

No, if you actually got an education your real income soared. The only people who didn't were the ones without an education, and that's mostlytheir fault, not the economy's. If you want to make money, get an education and work hard; it's not going to be easy, but it works.

Agreed 100% Its not actually the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Its more, the rich got richer, the middle class got richer and the poor got WAY poorer.

the way I see it, the middle class are the ones who my heart lies with. They work the hardest and make up the large bulk of our soceity, so if they boom all around and the uneducated welfare suckers get poorer, so be it. Call me a dirty capitalist, but thats how I see it.

It's better than any other model we have besides pure liberalism. Until the world is globalized enough for free competition to reign over the markets, we have no other option that will work. Socialism and populism failed miserably, protectionism brought the Depression, mercantilism was a disaster and we're still feeling the imperialism hangover.

Neoliberalism is a transitionary system; it's neither desirable nor sustainable as a means in itself but it is an necessity of economic evolution.
Just to make a quick point, but true socialist economics have never been practised, so on technicality it can't have failed.:rolleyes:

To the point of the thread, Neo-Liberal economic policy is, currently, the best system that is operable, though it does require minor tweaks still as it is far from perfect.

Call me a dirty capitalist, but thats how I see it.

You dirty capitalist, you.

:fluffle:

Because the evil fat cats are forcing laborers in the turd world to work for subsistence wages, right? :rolleyes:If nothing stops them, why wouldn't they?

Neo-Libs want to remove the obstacles for such behaviour.

Yes. End it. Giving more power to a group of global elites with every intention of smashing the social gains of centuries of popular struggle is not a sensible development plan.

the way I see it, the middle class are the ones who my heart lies with. They work the hardest and make up the large bulk of our soceity, so if they boom all around and the uneducated welfare suckers get poorer, so be it.

On what basis do you say that the middle class works the hardest?

If nothing stops them, why wouldn't they?

Neo-Libs want to remove the obstacles for such behaviour.
Maybe because businesses are concerned with producing capital for their investors? Wholesale enslavement has a nasty tendency of bringing bad PR and reducing productivity.

It's better than any other model we have besides pure liberalism. Until the world is globalized enough for free competition to reign over the markets, we have no other option that will work. Socialism and populism failed miserably, protectionism brought the Depression, mercantilism was a disaster and we're still feeling the imperialism hangover.

Neoliberalism is a transitionary system; it's neither desirable nor sustainable as a means in itself but it is an necessity of economic evolution.
It must go!

On what basis do you say that the middle class works the hardest?

On my own personal views and beleifs.

They work long hour boring shifts for large corporations.

They usually have to provide for a solid family.

They usually go to college and strive to get good educations.

But it pays off because during times like the Reagan years, these people come up to the lower upper class or the upper middle class.

And, I know I mentioned this before, they make up the bulk of America and represent the normal American.

On my own personal views and beleifs.

They work long hour boring shifts for large corporations.

They usually have to provide for a solid family.

They usually go to college and strive to get good educations.

But it pays off because during times like the Reagan years, these people come up to the lower upper class or the upper middle class.

And, I know I mentioned this before, they make up the bulk of America and represent the normal American.
If they do the majority of the work would that not make them, by definition, working class?

Whereas Neo-Liberalism is the economic enslavement, oppression & abuse of all resources, human or otherwise.

I suppose it would actually be better to have a loving government take care of us. I hate private property, the government would give as much as we officially need, and would expect of us to work to our official abilities.

Agree?

On my own personal views and beleifs.

They work long hour boring shifts for large corporations.

Yes. Lots of poor people do, too. Some of them work several jobs at once.

They usually have to provide for a solid family.

Lots of poor people do, too.

They usually go to college and strive to get good educations.

You can "strive to get a good education" as much as you want, but you don't have access to the right opportunities, all that "striving" is useless.

I suppose it would actually be better to have a loving government take care of us. I hate private property, the government would give as much as we officially need, and would expect of us to work to our official abilities.

Agree?

Personally, I would prefer to have ourselves take care of ourselves, and be servile neither to corporations or to states.

You can "strive to get a good education" as much as you want, but you don't have access to the right opportunities, all that "striving" is useless.

Scholarship/loans are available.

I suppose it would actually be better to have a loving government take care of us. I hate private property, the government would give as much as we officially need, and would expect of us to work to our official abilities.

Agree?
100%

If they do the majority of the work would that not make them, by definition, working class?

I guess, but it doesnt really change anything I was saying.

Ending the neo-liberal model is the equivilent of saying that individual liberty has failed.

If you don't like a particular corporation, don't buy/work with them. Don't make your own personal preferences required of the rest of us.

Scholarship/loans are available.

Of course. But our education system is a disaster for many long before college.

100%

Arrkendommer, when did you give up on liberty? Do you feel the masses are too stupid to handle it?

Ending the neo-liberal model is the equivilent of saying that individual liberty has failed.

No. Individual liberty has nothing to do with neoliberalism.

If you don't like a particularly corporation, don't buy/work with them. Don't make your own personal preferences required of the rest of us.

So work for another corporation that's just as bad? Starve?

Arrkendommer, when did you give up on liberty? Do you feel the masses are too stupid to handle it?

Do you think "the masses" are in favor of neoliberalism?

Of course. But our education system is a disaster for many long before college.

Well, I'll agree with you on that, but that affects the middle class just as much as the poor.

In South Florida and where I lived in Southern California...public schools sucked goats nuts, no matter if you lived in the ghetto (though it sucked more so there) or if you lived in a middle class area.

We really need to get to work on our education system...this is something that conservatives and liberals need to reform, and fast...our its our nations youth that will retard this country from the inside, regardless of idealogy.

Do you think "the masses" are in favor of neoliberalism?

Uh...yes.

Uh...yes.

Where?

Where?

Everywhere in the Western world...in Japan, in Israel, and in Hong Kong.

Also in the upcoming Eastern European countries...like Estonia and to a lesser extent Finland.

Everywhere in the Western world...in Japan, in Israel, and in Hong Kong.

Israel? Didn't you hear about Amir Peretz? Where do you think he came from?

Hong Kong and Japan? Maybe. I don't pay much attention to the politics of either.

"Everywhere in the Western world"? Like in France, where the population mobilized to stop neoliberal reforms? Or in Germany, where the SPD's adoption of too many neoliberal policies resulted in a party considerably to their left (the Linkspartei) gaining 54 seats? Or even in the US, where polls repeatedly indicate popular support for more government spending in health care and education, and Bush's handling of the supposedly recovering economy is one of his weakest spots? Not to mention the distress over increased labor competition (the concerns over outsourcing and illegal immigration).

Also in the upcoming Eastern European countries...like Estonia and to a lesser extent Finland.

Eastern Europe's experience with neoliberalism has varied; in some places it has meant positive changes, in others sharply negative. One major problem is that a good deal of the resistance comes from Stalinist parties, which are, rightfully, mistrusted.

Edit: Not to mention certain other reactions to neoliberalism - like those of "the masses" in Chiapas, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Haiti, and elsewhere.

Israel? Didn't you hear about Amir Peretz? Where do you think he came from?

Hong Kong and Japan? Maybe. I don't pay much attention to the politics of either.

"Everywhere in the Western world"? Like in France, where the population mobilized to stop neoliberal reforms? Or in Germany, where the SPD's adoption of too many neoliberal policies resulted in a party considerably to their left (the Linkspartei) gaining 54 seats? Or even in the US, where polls repeatedly indicate popular support for more government spending in health care and education, and Bush's handling of the supposedly recovering economy is one of his weakest spots? Not to mention the distress over increased labor competition (the concerns over outsourcing and illegal immigration).



Eastern Europe's experience with neoliberalism has varied; in some places it has meant positive changes, in others sharply negative. One major problem is that a good deal of the resistance comes from Stalinist parties, which are, rightfully, mistrusted.

Yes...hes that labor union leader. Still...the two very popular parties in Israelare the right wing and moderate right party then....theres the labor party.

France's problems could be that they have had such lax rules on working that when they try to insitute better ones, the lazy population revolts.

For Germany, could it be that the former socialist east is influencing things just a TAD?

In America..even though many people might favor a few left wing ideas...better government healthcare and such...retains a positive view of our Capitalist soceity/world.

Capitalism is the only thing that can bring Eastern Europe up from the depths that socialism sunk it. Poland has greaty improved, as have Estonia and Finland (though Finland wasnt Eastern block, it was still heavily influenced by the USSSR). Other places like Hungary (even though they just elected a socialist) and Czeck Republic have improved alot because of their capitalist reforms as well. Its only a matter of time before the east is brought up to the standards of the west.

Oh, and I forgot East Germany...look how far it has come since the early 90;s.!

Yes...hes that labor union leader. Still...the two very popular parties in Israelare the right wing and moderate right party then....theres the labor party.

France's problems could be that they have had such lax rules on working that when they try to insitute better ones, the lazy population revolts.

For Germany, could it be that the former socialist east is influencing things just a TAD?

In America..even though many people might favor a few left wing ideas...better government healthcare and such...retains a positive view of our Capitalist soceity/world.

Capitalism is the only thing that can bring Eastern Europe up from the depths that socialism sunk it. Poland has greaty improved, as have Estonia and Finland (though Finland wasnt Eastern block, it was still heavily influenced by the USSSR). Other places like Hungary (even though they just elected a socialist) and Czeck Republic have improved alot because of their capitalist reforms as well. Its only a matter of time before the east is brought up to the standards of the west.

Oh, and I forgot East Germany...look how far it has come since the early 90;s.!
Have you been to Eastern europe lately?
Would have to argue that many Russians wouldn't agree with you that their Country has improved since the allowance of increased capitalism (the idea that everythingwas owned by the State isn't technically true, there were small private businesses but these had difficulty in gaining goods to sell) hasn't increased the amount of goods available to all, nor has it made a wonderful improvement in quality of life. Healthcare costs are rising, wages are (overall) falling, birth rates are falling, and mortality rates are increasing. Not a good argument for Neo-Liberalism, and capitalism in general.

Yes...hes that labor union leader. Still...the two very popular parties in Israelare the right wing and moderate right party then....theres the labor party.

Wrong. Labor is second in number of seats. Kadima is not center-right, it's centrist. Labor is part of the coalition, and if it fails to force a left-wing economic agenda through, it will not be due to lack of capability but rather to cowardice and incompetence on the part of its leadership.

Furthermore, Israeli politics tends to be focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; it was under that cover that neoliberalism was imposed.

France's problems could be that they have had such lax rules on working that when they try to insitute better ones, the lazy population revolts.

I knew I was going to get that response eventually; that's the point I'm trying to make. Neoliberalism is based on the idea that the population is too stupid and lazy to influence the economy themselves; that's why its proponents have repeatedly tried to destroy the capability of popularly-elected governments to change things, and that's why it's met with such intense resistance from popular movements in the Third World.

For Germany, could it be that the former socialist east is influencing things just a TAD?

So their experience with Stalinism made them more left-wing?

In America..even though many people might favor a few left wing ideas...better government healthcare and such...retains a positive view of our Capitalist soceity/world.

As opposed to what? Ask most people here to define "socialism" and see what kinds of answers you get.

Capitalism is the only thing that can bring Eastern Europe up from the depths that socialism sunk it. Poland has greaty improved, as have Estonia and Finland (though Finland wasnt Eastern block, it was still heavily influenced by the USSSR). Other places like Hungary (even though they just elected a socialist) and Czeck Republic have improved alot because of their capitalist reforms as well. Its only a matter of time before the east is brought up to the standards of the west.

Oh, and I forgot East Germany...look how far it has come since the early 90;s.!

And for some it has meant lack of access to health care and a loss of job security. Not being an advocate of Stalinism, I feel no need to defend the obvious corruption, incompetence, and stagnation that permeated the overthrown regimes, but for many, neoliberalism has brought little improvement.

Plus, we get to oppress the proletariat. That's more fun than kicking a puppy!
Chicks dig capitalist oppressors! :D
-HotRodia

I suppose it would actually be better to have a loving government take care of us. I hate private property, the government would give as much as we officially need, and would expect of us to work to our official abilities.

Agree?Nope. But that doesn't mean I'm in favour of completely deregulating everything. Privatising things like sanitation has proved to be a horribly bad idea is every case I know of. Same thing with power companies & the like. Letting corporates decide how they want to handle environmental protection in a free market situation, will make them do whatever's cheapest, regardless of consequences. Otherwise they won't be competitive.

Etc ad infuckinfinitum.

Neo-Liberalism is a bad idea. It's the policy of short term benefit regardless of consequences.

Besides, if we look at the actual practice of it, it would seem it's all about revenue & not at all about liberalism. Subsidies didn't go down. We're still paying taxes that get spend on supporting uncompetitive private enterprise. If I had to choose, I'd rather it be spend on education, healthcare or bloody cacti. I fail to see how it's fair I work MY ass off to support some incompetent farmer somewhere. Maybe it'd be a better investment to re-educate the guy & help him change career, eh?

What about tax barriers? You know, the things we maintain to prevent others from competing with us. What's liberal about that?

Neo-Liberalism.. It's for cheats, liars & con artists.

Nope. But that doesn't mean I'm in favour of completely deregulating everything. Privatising things like sanitation has proved to be a horribly bad idea is every case I know of. Same thing with power companies & the like. Letting corporates decide how they want to handle environmental protection in a free market situation, will make them do whatever's cheapest, regardless of consequences. Otherwise they won't be competitive.

Etc ad infuckinfinitum.

Neo-Liberalism is a bad idea. It's the policy of short term benefit regardless of consequences.

Besides, if we look at the actual practice of it, it would seem it's all about revenue & not at all about liberalism. Subsidies didn't go down. We're still paying taxes that get spend on supporting uncompetitive private enterprise. If I had to choose, I'd rather it be spend on education, healthcare or bloody cacti. I fail to see how it's fair I work MY ass off to support some incompetent farmer somewhere. Maybe it'd be a better investment to re-educate the guy & help him change career, eh?

What about tax barriers? You know, the things we maintain to prevent others from competing with us. What's liberal about that?

Neo-Liberalism.. It's for cheats, liars & con artists.

Don't spend the public treasury on anything except for the bare minimum necessary to safeguard our sacred rights. Otherwise, let the people who earn money, keep it, and do what they want with it.

You are only entitled to the money that someone else is willing to give to you. If you say "well, everyone deserves some money." Well, they don't, unless they are willing to do something useful for another person.

Capitalism has made United States the great country it is today...If any of you Liberal Fascists try to "rise up" and steal our land for your "great proletariat revolution", you're all getting lead in your bellies...

Gee, I guess that's why you support gun-control...

Capitalism has made United States the great country it is today...If any of you Liberal Fascists try to "rise up" and steal our land for your "great proletariat revolution", you're all getting lead in your bellies...

Gee, I guess that's why you support gun-control...

Wouldn't it be easier to launch a "great proletariat revolution" without gun control?

You are only entitled to the money that someone else is willing to give to you.

So from where does it originate in the first place?

Wouldn't it be easier to launch a "great proletariat revolution" without gun control?

No, because you don't have the support of the majority of the populace. If you take our guns away through government acts, you'll have an easier time of it.

Which is why liberal socialist moonbats love to harp on about gun-control.

Do you think it should stay, or go?
Why change something that works? Hmmm? :D

No, because you don't have the support of the majority of the populace. If you take our guns away through government acts, you'll have an easier time of it.

I would never, ever support a socialist revolution - or any kind of revolution - without the majority of the relevant population behind it. Period. No exceptions.

Which is why liberal socialist moonbats love to harp on about gun-control.

I am strongly against gun control, despite being a "liberal socialist moonbat."

Why change something that works? Hmmm? :D

Aren't you in favor of universal health care?

I would never, ever support a socialist revolution - or any kind of revolution - without the majority of the relevant population behind me. Period. No exceptions.
Well, you're certainly quite different than most of the Moonbats i've 'spoken' to (actually it mostly them talking at me)...They mostly imply that they'd love to kill off/enslave the majority of the populace so they can set up their "glorious socialist state"....Much talk of violence on their part, which is highly ironic when they call us warmongers...
I am strongly against gun control, despite being a "liberal socialist moonbat."
Well, at least one of your opinions is correct. :D

Aren't you in favor of universal health care?
No.

No.

Didn't you have a thread complaining about how "Big Labor" was sabotaging it?

Didn't you have a thread complaining about how "Big Labor" was sabotaging it?
I may have. Don't remember though.

Just to make a quick point, but true socialist economics have never been practised, so on technicality it can't have failed.:rolleyes:.

I know that; the only problem is, every attempt to do so has failed so it doesn't matter. If it doesn't work in practice, the theory doesn't matter.

I know that; the only problem is, every attempt to do so has failed so it doesn't matter. If it doesn't work in practice, the theory doesn't matter.

Well, no, not unless you can demonstrate that the failures were necessary conditions of the theory and not due to external pressure or flawed means.

Leninism is not the only socialist ideology that exists.

Havent read all the way through, but wasn't Reagan Conservative? Therefore, not a neo-liberal economy?

Havent read all the way through, but wasn't Reagan Conservative? Therefore, not a neo-liberal economy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/neoliberalism

Well, no, not unless you can demonstrate that the failures were necessary conditions of the theory and not due to external pressure or flawed means.

Economies do not exist in a bubble, and humans are not perfect. It's impossible for any system to be tested without external pressure or flawed means so it doesn't matter whether the system fails due to the theory. Everything is perfect in theory.

Leninism is not the only socialist ideology that exists.

No, but it's the only one that has been tried on a large scale. The few others tried have also failed. No country using any kind of socialism has been able to attain the living standards or freedoms available in most capitalist nations.

I did not know Reaganomics was neo-liberalism, I thought it was neo-conservatism like what is happening now. Boy, you got me on that one.

Economies do not exist in a bubble, and humans are not perfect. It's impossible for any system to be tested without external pressure or flawed means so it doesn't matter whether the system fails due to the theory. Everything is perfect in theory.

"It doesn't matter whether the system fails due to the theory"? If it doesn't, you're not testing the theory, merely the circumstances. If you can change the circumstances, and that is perfectly possible, you can alter the results of the test for the better.

No, but it's the only one that has been tried on a large scale.

True.

The few others tried have also failed.

Because they were crushed brutally. Or, because they had ridiculous and utopian models. In the latter case, your criticism is justified.

No country using any kind of socialism has been able to attain the living standards or freedoms available in most capitalist nations.

No country has ever used "any kind of socialism" on a national scale. I would go as far to say that the vast majority of "attempts" have not been sincere.

I did not know Reaganomics was neo-liberalism, I thought it was neo-conservatism like what is happening now. Boy, you got me on that one.

"Neoliberalism is the colonialism department of neoconservatism." - Granny D

"It doesn't matter whether the system fails due to the theory"? If it doesn't, you're not testing the theory, merely the circumstances. If you can change the circumstances, and that is perfectly possible, you can alter the results of the test for the better.

Changing the cirumstances would require drastic changes in virtually all aspects of human life today. Socialism simply doesn't work in the circumstances present on Earth; it will not work until both the law of scarcity and the concept of private ownership are abolished, among other things.

Because they were crushed brutally. Or, because they had ridiculous and utopian models. In the latter case, your criticism is justified.

They were often crushed brutally by the Soviets or other socialist nations who felt threatened by them. The US is also guilty of it in many cases, especially in South America.

No country has ever used "any kind of socialism" on a national scale. I would go as far to say that the vast majority of "attempts" have not been sincere.

That's because the circumstances present in human civilization have too many problems for socialism to work on a large scale. Perhaps in the future, when scarcity is nonexistent and technology self-evolving, but not at this point in time.

Changing the cirumstances would require drastic changes in virtually all aspects of human life today. Socialism simply doesn't work in the circumstances present on Earth; it will not work until both the law of scarcity and the concept of private ownership are abolished, among other things.

I don't think either of those fall under "external pressures" or "flawed means." If you can demonstrate that either problem would be fatal to the success of socialism, then that would indeed be a legitimate argument.

They were often crushed brutally by the Soviets or other socialist nations who felt threatened by them.

True, like the Makhnovists in the Ukraine and the Spanish Revolution. Which only proves that Leninism as practiced by Lenin and Stalinism as practiced by Stalin and his successors were vicious and brutal ideologies.

The US is also guilty of it in many cases, especially in South America.

Also true. Which is one reason I am skeptical of neoliberalism (and Leninism); it has a long trail of blood behind it.

I don't think either of those fall under "external pressures" or "flawed means." If you can demonstrate that either problem would be fatal to the success of socialism, then that would indeed be a legitimate argument.

They fall under flawed means. In order for the socialist model to work, economic inefficiency created by scarcity has to be eliminated; also, the concept of private ownership would have to be eliminated in order to refocus self-interest from the individual to the collective or else the problems of greed and powerlust will collapse the system from the inside.

True, like the Makhnovists in the Ukraine and the Spanish Revolution. Which only proves that Leninism as practiced by Lenin and Stalinism as practiced by Stalin and his successors were vicious and brutal ideologies.

On a small scale, socialism works. I know that and it would be a lie to suggest otherwise. The difficult part is extrapolating such a system to the scale of tens or hundreds of millions of people and motivating people to produce the huge variety of goods, technologies and services needed in a dynamic economy. That's why it will take a higher technological level for socialism to be a reality; I believe it is feasible, but not yet.

Also true. Which is one reason I am skeptical of neoliberalism (and Leninism); it has a long trail of blood behind it.

That's why I hope neoliberalism is a transitionary phase rather than a permanent one. It does cause serious damage to the environment and opportunities of the poor that will not be solved by the market alone. There is no conflict between free markets and welfare, especially if the social services are consistent worldwide.

I thought the best economic system and standard of living was determined by the real world, i.e. the best system is the one which gives a country the highest standard of living and GNP in the world...

I thought the best economic system and standard of living was determined by the real world, i.e. the best system is the one which gives a country the highest standard of living and GNP in the world...

Well, it is. Arguments over economic theory are more philosophical than anything else.

They fall under flawed means.

Well, I was thinking of "means" more in terms of tactics, rather than aspects of the model. Anyway, as long as it's intrinsic to the theory, the argument is legitimate.

In order for the socialist model to work, economic inefficiency created by scarcity has to be eliminated;

You mean, the economic inefficiency caused by a lack of markets to deal with scarcity? That rests on the assumption that a socialist system cannot use market mechanisms, which is not true; it involves collective ownership of the means of production, not arbitrary price-setting.

also, the concept of private ownership would have to be eliminated in order to refocus self-interest from the individual to the collective or else the problems of greed and powerlust will collapse the system from the inside.

I think socialism is perfectly compatible with self-interest, as long as effort is rewarded in some manner. In fact, I would say it is more compatible with self-interest than capitalism, not less; under capitalism the mechanisms exist for the self-interested person to exploit others in order to satisfy that self-interest.

On a small scale, socialism works. I know that and it would be a lie to suggest otherwise.

Okay.

The difficult part is extrapolating such a system to the scale of tens or hundreds of millions of people and motivating people to produce the huge variety of goods, technologies and services needed in a dynamic economy. That's why it will take a higher technological level for socialism to be a reality; I believe it is feasible, but not yet.

Well, it can't be done top-down, as central planning was; that's clearly unworkable. It has to be done in a way that:

1. Meaningfully incorporates market mechanisms to maximize efficiency;
2. Maximizes democratic accountability to ensure that the system is actually serving the people it's supposed to serve;
3. Decentralizes planning to reduce bureaucracy and increase responsiveness;
4. Is flexible enough that trial and error will root out bad policies and replace them with good ones.

That's why I hope neoliberalism is a transitionary phase rather than a permanent one. It does cause serious damage to the environment and opportunities of the poor that will not be solved by the market alone.

But why should we expect that the people trying to impose it are willing to keep it "transitionary"?

There is no conflict between free markets and welfare, especially if the social services are consistent worldwide.

I hope so, because if there is such a conflict, we are in trouble.

I thought the best economic system and standard of living was determined by the real world, i.e. the best system is the one which gives a country the highest standard of living and GNP in the world...

How do you measure "highest standard of living"? And why do you assume that it corresponds to GNP?