Socialism Helps Prevent Obesity

[Trausti]

One of the clear benefits of Socialism is that health issues which plague Capitalist countries - like obesity, diabetes, etc. - are mostly unheard of. In Venezuela, Socialism has reaped the wonders of the Maduro Diet.

Nearly 75% of the population involuntarily lost an average of 19 pounds last year, according to a survey released this year by three of Venezuela’s largest universities and a foundation that tracks nutrition. Venezuelans call the weight loss the “Maduro diet,” a sarcastic reference to life under President Nicolas Maduro.

In North Korea, the people are spared the health risks of meat.

And more righteously, the leaders of Socialist countries take upon themselves the risk of overeating so their people can be spared the burden.

Bring on the revolution!

 

[untermensche]

Only the most ignorant fool thinks North Korea represents Socialism or Venezuela after Chavez represents Socialism.

Why don't we point to capitalist Haiti or capitalist Guatemala or capitalist Mexico and look for poverty and hunger?

How about the good ol' USA?

Hunger in America

https://www.worldhunger.org/hunger-in-america-2016-united-states-hunger-poverty-facts/

The estimated percentage of U.S. households that were food insecure declined significantly in 2015 to 12.7 percent of U.S. households (15.8 million households, approximately one in eight). This is down significantly from 2014, when 14.0 percent of households (17.5 million households, approximately one in seven), were food insecure. It continues a downward trend from 14.9 percent food insecure in 2011, the highest percentage ever recorded.

 

[LordKiran]

Attributing famine to socialism as a concept seems off to me, plenty of socialistic countries throughout the EU do just fine with their socialist programs and people aren't starving in the streets. You really are desperate to make an enemy out of a set of policies.

 

[LordKiran]

Only the most ignorant fool thinks North Korea represents Socialism or Venezuela after Chavez represents Socialism.

Why don't we point to capitalist Haiti or capitalist Guatemala or capitalist Mexico and look for poverty and hunger?

How about the good ol' USA?



https://www.worldhunger.org/hunger-in-america-2016-united-states-hunger-poverty-facts/

The estimated percentage of U.S. households that were food insecure declined significantly in 2015 to 12.7 percent of U.S. households (15.8 million households, approximately one in eight). This is down significantly from 2014, when 14.0 percent of households (17.5 million households, approximately one in seven), were food insecure. It continues a downward trend from 14.9 percent food insecure in 2011, the highest percentage ever recorded.

Or capitalist India, or capitalist Brazil, or capitalist Bengladesh

 

[Harry Bosch]

Attributing famine to socialism as a concept seems off to me, plenty of socialistic countries throughout the EU do just fine with their socialist programs and people aren't starving in the streets. You really are desperate to make an enemy out of a set of policies.

But the countries in the EU are still capitalist countries. IOW, the means or production are still mostly owned by individuals rather than the collective. They have a system just like the US system, it's just that they have higher taxes and a larger safety net.

 

[LordKiran]

Attributing famine to socialism as a concept seems off to me, plenty of socialistic countries throughout the EU do just fine with their socialist programs and people aren't starving in the streets. You really are desperate to make an enemy out of a set of policies.

But the countries in the EU are still capitalist countries. IOW, the means or production are still mostly owned by individuals rather than the collective. They have a system just like the US system, it's just that they have higher taxes and a larger safety net.

Socialism is not anti-capitalism, that's communism. Socialism is a term that predates the soviet union and the rise of our modern idea of communism.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But the countries in the EU are still capitalist countries. IOW, the means or production are still mostly owned by individuals rather than the collective. They have a system just like the US system, it's just that they have higher taxes and a larger safety net.

Socialism is not anti-capitalism, that's communism. Socialism is a term that predates the soviet union and the rise of our modern idea of communism.

He means that wherever you can't wear your KKK outfit is socialism.

 

[Harry Bosch]

But the countries in the EU are still capitalist countries. IOW, the means or production are still mostly owned by individuals rather than the collective. They have a system just like the US system, it's just that they have higher taxes and a larger safety net.

Socialism is not anti-capitalism, that's communism. Socialism is a term that predates the soviet union and the rise of our modern idea of communism.

Traditional Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." It this sense, it is very anti-capitalist.

I would agree with you that over time in the US, socialism has changed into shorthand for services that government provides and which are paid for by taxes.

 

[LordKiran]

Socialism is not anti-capitalism, that's communism. Socialism is a term that predates the soviet union and the rise of our modern idea of communism.

Traditional Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." It this sense, it is very anti-capitalist.

I would agree with you that over time in the US, socialism has changed into shorthand for services that government provides and which are paid for by taxes.

All I take from that is that it is better to have the means of production owned by many hands rather than by few. This can mean ensuring that big companies are broken down to size and made to compete with each other, and making the competitive nature of capitalism work for you rather than against you.

Having the means of production a communal concern can mean a world populated solely by small regional businesses.

If I had to prescribe a form of socialistic capitalism it would be one where individuals are encouraged to form companies and make those companies successful, and then when the company reaches a certain size it is liquidated, its liquid assets shared with all participants but the lion's share going to the owner. This person then retires and the process repeats itself, making room for the next enterprising business person.

 

[dismal]

Traditional Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." It this sense, it is very anti-capitalist.

I would agree with you that over time in the US, socialism has changed into shorthand for services that government provides and which are paid for by taxes.

All I take from that is that it is better to have the means of production owned by many hands rather than by few.

Congratulations. You're not a socialist.

 

[LordKiran]

All I take from that is that it is better to have the means of production owned by many hands rather than by few.

Congratulations. You're not a socialist.

Sure I am! What is a community but a group of people living together?

 

[dismal]

Congratulations. You're not a socialist.

Sure I am! What is a community but a group of people living together?

Didn't we just establish that

A) socialism means the government owns the means of production
b) you are against one entity controlling the means of production

 

[LordKiran]

Sure I am! What is a community but a group of people living together?

Didn't we just establish that

A) socialism means the government owns the means of production
b) you are against one entity controlling the means of production

No, we did not establish that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

North Korea is crazy, but this picture looks real?

 

[LordKiran]

North Korea is crazy, but this picture looks real?

Right? Noticed that right away. Looks fake as fuck.

 

[ZiprHead]

Traditional Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." It this sense, it is very anti-capitalist.

All I take from that is that it is better to have the means of production owned by many hands rather than by few.

Congratulations. You're not a socialist.

Unless you support full deregulation, you're a socialist too.

Hey look! I dismalized!

 

[Derec]

Right? Noticed that right away. Looks fake as fuck.

Are you trying to say that North Korea hasn't bred a race of mutant pig men midget soldiers?

On the overall point of the thread, Trausti is absolutely right. Socialism (properly defined as system that has or strives toward public ownership of means of production) is an incredibly inefficient way to run the economy and leads to scarcity in the midst of plenty. For example Venezuela with all their oil riches not being able to feed itself. As the old joke goes, if socialism came to the Sahara, in 5 years they'd have to import sand.

European countries are not "socialist" just because they have somewhat high taxation rates and somewhat more generous social safety nets. Their economic system is still capitalist.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Harry Bosch]

Traditional Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." It this sense, it is very anti-capitalist.

I would agree with you that over time in the US, socialism has changed into shorthand for services that government provides and which are paid for by taxes.

All I take from that is that it is better to have the means of production owned by many hands rather than by few. This can mean ensuring that big companies are broken down to size and made to compete with each other, and making the competitive nature of capitalism work for you rather than against you.

Having the means of production a communal concern can mean a world populated solely by small regional businesses.

If I had to prescribe a form of socialistic capitalism it would be one where individuals are encouraged to form companies and make those companies successful, and then when the company reaches a certain size it is liquidated, its liquid assets shared with all participants but the lion's share going to the owner. This person then retires and the process repeats itself, making room for the next enterprising business person.

I'm not disagreeing with your comments. However, I'm sensitive to how people define Socialism. Describing the EU countries as socialist is the republican definition. Republicans started defining larger safety nets as socialism in order to demean social programs. It's a way to mock programs paid for by taxes. I'm a capitalist son of a bitch. Started a couple companies. Did well. Currently have a nice portfolio of publically traded stocks. However, I would not be where I am today without a safety net....

 

[rousseau]

Whenever I hear a Conservative conflate marxism with modern social democracy my eyes roll out of my head and I fall asleep for a thousand years.

I even heard a British MP make a comment like this a few weeks ago on the BBC. People are idiots.

If you want the world to get better stop being intellectually dishonest and start making an attempt to understand the world around you.