Has there ever been a great society based on anti-socialism?

[OAITW r.2.0]

Germany and Japan only lasted a decade and their contribution to greatness was in the number of lives that they managed to have killed.

[brooklynite]

1. Has there ever been a great society based on anti-capitalism?

I don't see the significance of the question.

[RockRaven]

2. What counts as a great society?

[Ocelot II]

3. I'm not sure what this means.

[OAITW r.2.0]

7. You are one of the folks on DU that I pay attention to.

If you don't understand my question, you can reformulate the question so as to provoke your comment.

[Ocelot II]

10. Thanks. But what do you mean by anti-socialist?

Capitalist? If so, the old colonial British Empire might be an example of a great society, or at least a successful one for awhile. But socialism as an economic system wasn’t a thing, even theoretically, until the 19th century. Before that, most countries, not just Britain, were monarchies, which is about as anti-socialist as you can get. These days, a number of prosperous democracies with robust social safety nets (though not actually socialist) - Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands- are also monarchies. So I’m not sure whether there’s any meaningful comparison.

[OAITW r.2.0]

14. My question was more primal. I think all socialists could argue and disagree about the best economic engine to better

society. Without hating each other.

[DBoon]

4. Was Chile under Pinochet great?

[OAITW r.2.0]

5. Do you think Pinochet was a socialist?

[DBoon]

9. No, he was an anti-socialist, implementing Milton Freedman's economics

and murdering thousands of his opponents

If ones believes he was "great" then this is an example of a great anti-socialist country.

[OAITW r.2.0]

11. All of what you said....I cannot disagree with.

[DBoon]

15. "You must enslave humans to make markets free"

[OAITW r.2.0]

18. When were markets "free"?

[DBoon]

19. In the imagination of Milton Friedman

[Bluethroughu]

6. If people in the United States hate socialism...

They haven't read the Constitution, it is based in socialism. This is why it says "promote the general welfare" and why our Countrys' real estate is owned collectively, and why the Government can take everything and anything through eniment domain.

There are Rights of the citizens to the collectively owned property, but it is not and will never be a Kingdom again. 1776!

That is unless the not so Supreme Court Conservative Justices, burn our country down for their benefactors tomorrow.

[former9thward]

13. My Constitution is not based on socialism.

I have the edition which was ratified in 1789. Socialism was not even a theory then. Maybe your copy is different.

The "general welfare" clause has nothing to do with what you are posting. James Madison, who wrote the Constitution, said that clause "meant the powers delegated to the central government are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” -Federalist #45. Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45

Property is not collectively owned. It is divided between private and public property. The government can't take "anything and everything" through eminent domain.

But maybe in your copy...

[OAITW r.2.0]

16. Wouldn't it be great if the Founding Fathers could come back for a 2 week visit?

Then have their honest debrief before they departed.

[former9thward]

20. Yes

But whatever side disagreed with them would say "well, that was old stuff from 200 plus years ago."

[Bluethroughu]

22. The fact that property is returned to the government if

Someone does not pay taxes, dies and has no heirs or the fact that you have a "bundle of rights" to property because ownership is limited.

If we were at war, or needed your property for any reason that benefits the majority and not limited to real estate, the government can take it for use, with fair compensation, because we are a collective society.

If we were not, we'd be exactly what the oligarchs are trying to do. They hate the Constitution because it has these built in protections, so a person, corporation or whatever can not take over through ownership of assets, real estate, food, production or resources.

We have options that have precedent such as the government taking over private business during WW2 for the general welfare of our country at the time. The national guard carried Sewell Avery chairmen of the board of Montgomery ward out of office.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/remembering-montgomery-ward-seizure-fdr-and-war-production-powers

[former9thward]

28. Absoluting nothing in all that has anything to do with sociailsm.

Fascist governments do all that, democratic republics do all that. Any government other than anarchy which is no government, does all those things.

[Bluethroughu]

31. You own a BUNDLE OF RIGHTS to a property,

To use, until you sell that BUNDLE OF RIGHTS to someone else.

I don't know other countries' execution of property rights.

[DBoon]

17. The Confederacy eliminated "promote the general welfare"

very telling.

[keithbvadu2]

12. 'Socialism' can depend whether you are benefitting or I am benefitting.

[EX500rider]

21. A better question might be has there ever been a successful socialist economy

Using the correct definition of socialism as the government owning the means of production we have Russia during the Soviet Union we've got North Korea Cuba Venezuela pre-1980s China Etc all failures as economies

[Bluethroughu]

23. Russia, Venezuela, North Korea are led by Dictators.

If the country is led by a dictator, it's a dictatorship. The dictator decides who gets everything and who dies.

We are not a capitalist economy because our collective taxes invest in capital, people, states, infrastructure etc. We are the closest country to socialism because of this and our ability to elect our representatives that make policy to distribute the collective to promote the general welfare of the country.
As long as we can keep it.

[EX500rider]

24. You should look up the definition of Socialism 1st

It is a primarily a economic system, not a political one, if the govt owns the means of production is is a socialist economy, it can be any kind of political system.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
That always ends up being the govt in a macro State, not the people as someone has to make day to day decisions without the input of the whole community.

All govts are suppose to promote the general welfare of the country, that and defense are their job.

[Bluethroughu]

25. I know what it means, and that's how we operate.

Our Government subsidizes industry from concept through finished products by giving grants, loans, tax subsides, seed money, investments etc...no company is immune from government intervention in our country. They have all participated and gain from a contribution of the collective.

Just because an officer/owner runs a company does not mean they have not participated in benefits provided by the government for their company. Those benefits were earned, made or from the collective. Aka, driving down paved roads, public schooled employees, and any other infrastructure physically, digitally, or mentally built by the collective of the country.

There is NO FREE MARKET. We are a socialist country and the fascists want more of the collective, and pay nothing to operate in it. See plantation economics.

There are many countries that do not operate to promote the general welfare of their people living in it for any protections or otherwise.

We are a great experiment, and we will be free as long as we are able to hold on to it,
it's white knuckles at this point.

[EX500rider]

27. If the govt does not own the means of production it is not a socialist economy

Grants, loans, tax subsides, seed money, investments etc are not ownership and do not give the govt control.

Paved roads, public schooled employees, and any other infrastructure are not the means of production.

All govt's provide those things.

[Bluethroughu]

29. So companies operating independently, but using

unearned government money and resources are not part of socialism?

No economic theory operating within a country is applied in absolutes, but if business receives money or resources from a country to operate its business, it is not absolutely independent from the government.

[EX500rider]

30. Are they required to accept?

If not they have control.

[bucolic_frolic]

26. There have been durable civilizations

Ancient Egypt, some of the Middle East civilizations, Chinese dynasties, Aztec. All based on central control, exploitation of labor, some type of ruling elites, religious or otherwise. I don't think the peasants were well off. So maybe it depends on what you consider a great society.

[DFW]

32. Of course not. No more so than there has ever been a great society based on socialism

There are a lot of, to put it politely, "questionable" religions and ideologies that have been used as labels to describe governments and/or societies that have had vague--at best--resemblance to the meaning of their label. "Anti-socialist" is about as easy to grasp as a basis for a society's structure as "corporatist." There will always be someone ready and willing to argue the point, just as, if you look long enough, you will find someone who states that there is a country called "Nambia."

Like Sportin' Life sang, "it ain't necessarily so."