Why People still believe that socialism would work If every country thta adopted this system failed?

You wouldn't call the government monopolizing healthcare and education socialism?

WTF I love socialism now

History has shown time and time again that prosperity follows freedom while poverty follows regulation. A great example of this is Sweden. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the relatively free economy gave rise to all sorts of great inventors and entrepreneurs like Nobel, Wingquistm Dalen, and Platen and it allowed Sweden to have the highest per capital income growth in the world between 1870 to 1950. Starting in the 1930's Swedish politicians began moving towards a fascist style socialist "planning." With an ever growing welfare state, high taxes and new regulations, government spending and the number government employees rose, and while they were able to live off the hard work and innovation of the previous generation for a while, they couldn't avoid economic reality. By the 1980's economic growth collapsed and the real estate and stock market bubbles burst. Interest rates at the Swedish central bank rose 500 percent by 1990. Sweden fell from 4 to 20 in international income comparisons. This thankfully led to a revolt against the socialist regime that led to a more conservative government that abolished currency controls, reduced marginal income tax rates, deregulated bank lending, privatized central government enterprises among other things. Sweden's national debt went from 80% of GDP in 1992 to 40% by 2008. This is just one of many examples of countries that are slowing being restored from destructive socialist policies. An even easier example of prosperity following freedom would be Britain before and after Margaret Thatcher began deregulating their economy.

Free healthcare and free education doesnt mean that the state has monopoly over both.

Why? Public education is awful compared to private schools and government run healthcare is always shittier and has very real incentive problems for the doctors and the researchers that develop new medicines.

Any sufficiently socialize industry is by definition a government monopoly because there's no room for competition. With the government picking and choosing winners and losers in the free market it's tantamount to fascism.

Because the market clearly doesn't provide healthcare or at least mediocre schooling for the poor, by funding these the government increases the value that each individual worker has, meaning the economy grows, meaning the government gets more money, which can be spent on improbing these public services for a greater increase of value.

Public services are paid for when they positivley effect the economy by supplying jobs for those who work there and freeing up money to spent rather than saved for healthcare or educational reasons.

Better value for money, most people can't afford the superior option.

:^)

Both private health and education are garbage in murrica compared to public health and education in most other first world countries.

It depends, functionally taking over an entire industry is not rational, the competition done by firms in order to sell to the socialized healthcare service encourages development of new products to meet the demands of the healthcare service, a government that takes over all the duties of firms in a market isn't doing a very good job, beyond that a healthcare service is basically just tax money being funneled into creating a place where citizens receive healthcare bought from providers, or supplied by the government, effectivley they're just a competitor to business's, and if your business can't compete then fuck you, firms that fail should die.

>Because the market clearly doesn't provide healthcare or at least mediocre schooling for the poor

Of course they do. Who do you think the target customer for charters schools are? It's the poorest and typically they educate those for much less funding than the public schools get and there's not a hospital in the US that can turn people away that need treatment. I despise this myth that people are dying from a lack of healthcare in the US because it's demonstrably not true. The bureaucratic rule of two holds almost everywhere you look. The per unit cost of government service will be on average twice as high as a comparable service offered in the competitive private sector. The US public schools spend more money per student than any other country on earth and yet they're still falling behind.

For many charter schools you don't need to pay a thing.

That's just American inefficiency for you

That argument would work if the definition of communism kept changing after being acquired.
But no, it's the other way around.
Communism is stateless, others change the definition of communism to include a state, and retards like yourself agree with them for the sole purpose of being able to dismiss communism because the failures changed the definition in a way that facilitated their failure.

Funny how anti-communists can agree with "communists" when it's the "communist" changing what communism is and failing.

>he thinks the state has anything to do with socialism
Socialism is when the means of production are controlled by the WORKERS. The state is simply one way of achieving this. However, if the state controls the means of production, and the workers have no control over the state, then the workers do not have control over the means of production. Therefore there cannot be socialism without some form of democracy.

They're still funded by the taxpayer, i thought your greviance was with any form of government ran industry.

The bureaucratic rule of two holds up everywhere you look.

>Y isn't x because you create features A,B and C that don't exist in the ideology
Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society where the means of production are held in common.

This wasn't added later user

Would you call private prisons "government run" because they receive public funding?

Private high schools are doing fine in America, even with public secondary education.

Would you call this discussion historical?

Except for the part where Sweden has been pretty much a great place to live since 1950...

Yeah I'm sure they things were just swell in 1990 with 500% inflation.

I never said communism, i said socialism. This is not a fucking thread about communism is a thread about socialism but you need to defend communism even If no one is atacking you fucking austistic ideology.

Holy shit I'm legitimately sorry.
I could have sworn OP said communism.
polite sage

No it doesn't. There's no universal law at play, it's just politics and business, not chemistry.

I AM not talking about communism i never mentioned communism . Iam talking about socialism If you think that then it isn't my fault.

Okay i sometimes do the same no problem.

>An even easier example of prosperity following freedom would be Britain before and after Margaret Thatcher began deregulating their economy.
Britain is an absolutely awful example of economic prosperity.

Considering the economic history of Britain, would you rather live there 5 years before Thatcher's desocialization programs or 5 years after?

Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably.

Lenin referred to socialism as the lower phase of communism wherein the means of production had been seized by the workers but class struggle still existed due to the ongoing existence of the bourgeoisie.

How are you defining socialism user?

Communism has had the same definition since its inception. Socialism has several meanings for different "schools", but each hasn't changed either. The successes/failures of democratic socialists, authoritarian socialists, libertarian socialists, etc. have very little to do with each other, and pretending one should take the blame/praise for the consequences of the others is retarded. And you aren't discussing with a single person changing ideologies, you are discussing with several people with different ideologies you sperg.
Pretty retarded post.

Sweden didn't fail during the period they had adopted large parts of functional socialism.

Socialism is by definition the control of the state by the means of production doens't matter If someone else has diferent ideology i AM discussing why People still believe that control of the state of the means of production works works.If you had read the fucking thread you would know.

5 years before.

What period? Pre-2000 or after -2000, If you are talking about pre-2000 they had to do various free-market reforms to make the country work again , and If you mean after -2000 well they aren't really socialists by marxist definition.