That list is a pretty sad indictment of Socialist success stories don't ya think? I mean with the exception of maybe Sweden or Norway none of these countries would be places i'd tolerate living in.

Lol...
 

Ok, that economic stuff is confusing, now this is a simple question, it has a 5 word answer. Here is my response.

China - The only reason they are doing good is that they have highly decentralized their economy. Centralization is socialism, decentralization is not.

North Korea - Tyranical Dictator on the verge of having nukes. But what about the treaty thing, you say? North korea didn't keep its promise when clinton or any of our other president's tried to make deals with them, why should they now. And also check out living conditions. There are always food shortages in NK, there economy has major problems, check out this pic.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a_at_night.jpg
the light in the lower part of the peninsula is south korea, not socialist, the upper part of the peninsula (NK) has almost no light at all, This shows the economic depression that north korea is suffering. And big suprise, north korea has a socialist central power government.


Cuba - Most people there don't even have toilet paper. You call that succesful?

Almost all of the other countries you named either have terrible living conditions, or have a half decentralized economy. If you run a country with a socialist centralized government you fail, that's all there is to it.

That is certainly part of the picture. The other part is that there are one billion consumers. The free market works.

It's already happening. Fly the American flag? You're an imperialist and a redneck. Vote against free handouts? You're an evil capitalist. Want to stop illegal immigration? You're a racist.

Government control is slowly creeping into every facet of our society, and our identity is changing for the worse.

Lets not forget that new orleans will be a chocolate city again. In other words a net taker.

^
:rotfl: I remember when he said that comment. He was SO serious too!

I don't think its the government
 

I don't think its the government that is slowly creeping into every facet of our society, its the liberal media and pop culture. Now I don't want to start the lib media debate again, but it is true. This is because the government (as far as the executive branch is concerned, and also before 2006 mid-terms) wanted the pledge of alligence to be continued in schools, didn't want free handouts,wants to stop illegal immigration. Bush in particular is being called a liar, a nazi, a fascist, and so on, for this not by the government but by the SP (Secular Progressive, incase you don't read Bill O'Reilly) Media. They attack him daily. If the SP's win this culture war, then we could be doomed to a socialist, central power country:nope:

Plus, all of the Pledge banning and such was backed by the American Communist Lawyers Assosiation (or ACLU for short!).:yep:

New Orleans...

I live about 35 miles from NO and every day in the paper and on the news I see people screaming about not getting their government money. Most of them were bitterly poor before, but now they want everything for free. The funny thing is that there are *so* many jobs around here. I mean, local stores can't even stay open late because there's no one to work. They're offering $9/hr to work at Walmart, which is pretty nice for the work. It may be more in New Orleans.

As for me, you couldn't pay me to live in New Orleans.

You asked me for a sucessful socialist government. You did not ask me for a sucessful socialist economy. First, let us reestablish the fact that socialism is an economic term, along with capitalism. Please note also that both North Korea and Sweeden are considered to have socialized economic policies. Also, please note that North Korea does not elect it's officials, whereas Sweeden does. This is because Sweeden is a liberal democracy, just like the US, while North Korea is a military dictatorship. As such, those terms relate to governmental styles, along with communism, anarchism, oligarchy, plutocracy, fascism and theocracy.

As all of the goverments I had mentioned have been able to remain in power for a long term, they are, as such successful. After all, the goal of government is to retain control of it's ability to govern. However, understand that there is significant difference in what you and most of the individuals in this thread are describing as 'socialism', and the actual dictatorships to which you refer. The two are not linked as prerequisite.

So you don't want to have the debate, but you want to win it?

:roll: Here we go again...

What you don't see?
 

The picture doesn't show the graft and greed of the world in both countries either.
The picture doesn't show all of the humble rural people on candle light, oil lamps or that just plain go to bed early either.
The picture doesn't show how many people aren't worried about what's on satellite, HBO, Showtime etc.
The picture doesn't show how many people are better off without the world as we know it.

I was raised anti-communist and I agree they have brained washed their people, especially North Korea with little speaker boxes stuck on one radio channel in every apartment, home and office.

But I have to exercise more caution with my freedoms. The price I am willing to pay, because someone stood up for them from the taxes on tea to answering Kuwatti's call for help one day.

As for Cuba not having any toilet paper ... My God! What do they wrap their fish in ... :lol:

We've had the aarghument before, and the outcome was at best inconclusive...I could go on, but I won't.:p
There will always be a section of society that won't work, you're quite right. that's why one definition of full employment is that everyone "willing and able to work has job opportunities". Usually this means 3-5% unemployment.

They won't be able to compete, seeing as the jobs they can do are leaving the country. Harsh I know, but no company will pay an American $12/hr to do a job that a Thai will do for $4. American workers need to improve their skills and qualifications, luckily they live in a country where it's very easy for them to do that, and then can move up the employment scale.

Let me clarify something here, Socialism means different things in different places and by no means is synonymous with totalitarian oppressive governments. It can be used as a label for political parties promoting the European-style welfare state (Like Sweden, Norway and a whole bunch of European states) or for a communist country like Cuba, but the two are quite different. Lumping them all together is at best inaccurate and at worst ignorant and inflammatory. They just aren't the same thing, despite the same use of terminology.

BTW, in my opinion, China is no longer a communist state, because it no longer delivers some of the social services, like education or health care for free. It has now crossed the bridge to fascism.:know: