Argentina: The Problem Is the State

[semigoodlookin]

If Argentina were a socialist country it may not be so bad here. Governments may fly under the banner of socialism here but I don’t view them as such. I would love to see some true socialism be successful here.

 

[Alpinista]

If Argentina were a socialist country it may not be so bad here. Governments may fly under the banner of socialism here but I don’t view them as such. I would love to see some true socialism be successful here.

Such as where? What country model do you have in mind?
And in what areas it could be more socialist? The markets are more or less totally protected from goods abroad. The taxes are incredibly high, the state sector is already accounting for ca 50% of the GDP. The power of the unions / sindicatos couldnt be any bigger.
Just a side note: according to the new law the solidarity tax will be up to 7.5% of the wealth for the richest this year (infobae). I mean much more socialist is not possible unless you mean communism.

 

[Rich One]

If Argentina were a socialist country it may not be so bad here. Governments may fly under the banner of socialism here but I don’t view them as such. I would love to see some true socialism be successful here.

Socialism has failed everywhere such as Eastern Europe, Cuba and Rusia. Don't mention the Nordic Socialism because that doesn't exist any longer , they are capitalists. China has a Capitalist Economy and a Communist Regime. Name those successful Socialist countries..?

 

[antipodean]

Socialism has failed everywhere such as Eastern Europe, Cuba and Rusia. Don't mention the Nordic Socialism because that doesn't exist any longer , they are capitalists. China has a Capitalist Economy and a Communist Regime. Name those successful Socialist countries..?

I would stay that socialism today doesn’t have a clear one size fits all definition. Even most scholars can’t agree on one. With the exception of the USA, most countries have a major political party that self-identifies as “socialist” but in modern social-democratic and not a USSR way. Most are even shaped by “socialist” policies - in other words believing in social safety net, minimizing wealth gaps, workers rights and a more bottom up approach to wealth distribution and generation. Recently many of these political parties have started to move away from affiliation with the international socialist movement to the international progressive movement instead.

 

[Rich One]

If you say so..! It's so general your proposal that I can only agree . Most scholars, most countries, most policies and many political parties believe in this socialism.

 

[antipodean]

If you say so..! It's so general your proposal that I can only agree . Most scholars, most countries, most policies and many political parties believe in this socialism.

Exactly, it’s vague. More often than not it’s just a label applied by the right as an insult and by the left as a badge of honor.

Let’s consider most European states are thought of as being “socialist” in structure. Many have and all have had left wing governments that are affiliated with socialist movement - self identifying as socialist. Free education, healthcare, workers rights, high tax with focus on redistribution, good welfare and universal pensions etc.

Here in Argentina those very same bones exist, but unlike Europe, here it is only rotting flesh hanging off them.

Does that make Argentina socialist, or just corrupt? Does it make its people socialist, or just ignorant and naïve? I’m not sure that the argument of Argentina being “socialist” or not has anything to do with its situation today.

 

[camberiu]

Let’s consider most European states are thought of as being “socialist” in structure. Many have and all have had left wing governments that are affiliated with socialist movement - self identifying as socialist. Free education, healthcare, workers rights, high tax with focus on redistribution, good welfare and universal pensions etc.

They also have strong property rights, simpler tax codes, significantly more fiscal responsibility, greater minimum retirement age, labor laws that are much more flexible than the ones found in Argentina (e.g Denmark has no official minimum wage) and economies a lot more open to the outside world than Argentina's. Propose any of that here and you will be automatically labeled as a neo-liberal, utra-right wing fascist at the service of the Washington Consensus.

 

[Alpinista]

Let’s consider most European states are thought of as being “socialist” in structure.

Hi Antipodean

whereas i value very much your contributions to this forum and in general i share most of your views, I fundamentally disagree with this one.

The overall basic fundament of almost all European states is open market capitalism by nature. In Germany for example there is a broad consensus between Social Democrats, right centered CDU (and also the Greens and certainly FDP) that the basic postwar model is and should be “Soziale Marktwirtschaft” (which could be translated as social market economy). And this applies for many countries, certainly towards the north of the continent. Then you have quite a few open market skeptical countries such as France. But as members of the European Union they are also effectively forced into this open market ‘corset’.

Now whether you have you left wing governments in power (social democrats or Greens), this doesnt change basically anything regarding the fundamental economic model. Obviously they are pushing for more state influence (social security etc) which often goes along with higher taxes.

Of course neither ‘pure’ capitalism nor ‘pure’ socialism exist. The latter in its core means that there is a central planning body which is ‘taking care‘ of the individuals. A capitalist, open market model puts the individuals at the centre and let them interact and trade within the boundaries of the law freely. What happened over the last 100+ years (or basically since the industrialization) is that there were more and more ‘social components’ added to this model (pension, social security, workers rights etc). But the fundamental principle was not really affected.

Regarding the Social Democrats: they were founded as a result of worker‘s movements (close to trade unions). Some of them were at the beginning of the Russian Revolution ideologically quite quite close to communism (even saw this as the ultimate goal), over the years and decades almost all of them abandoned the idea of socialism in the meaning of implementing a plan economy. So social democrats has nowadays not much to do with socialism, certainly not in Europe.

If you also look at the European states which rank in the top 10 of the most competitive countries (WEF) [NL, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark], they all have significant Social Democrat parties, which are in government or were there over the last decades partially. And if they were socialist at its core, these countries certainly wouldnt rank in the top 10 in this index.

 

[antipodean]

Hi Antipodean

whereas i value very much your contributions to this forum and in general i share most of your views, I fundamentally disagree with this one.

The overall basic fundament of almost all European states is open market capitalism by nature. In Germany for example there is a broad consensus between Social Democrats, right centered CDU (and also the Greens and certainly FDP) that the basic postwar model is and should be “Soziale Marktwirtschaft” (which could be translated as social market economy). And this applies for many countries, certainly towards the north of the continent. Then you have quite a few open market skeptical countries such as France. But as members of the European Union they are also effectively forced into this open market ‘corset’.

Now whether you have you left wing governments in power (social democrats or Greens), this doesnt change basically anything regarding the fundamental economic model. Obviously they are pushing for more state influence (social security etc) which often goes along with higher taxes.

Of course neither ‘pure’ capitalism nor ‘pure’ socialism exist. The latter in its core means that there is a central planning body which is ‘taking care‘ of the individuals. A capitalist, open market model puts the individuals at the centre and let them interact and trade within the boundaries of the law freely. What happened over the last 100+ years (or basically since the industrialization) is that there were more and more ‘social components’ added to this model (pension, social security, workers rights etc). But the fundamental principle was not really affected.

Regarding the Social Democrats: they were founded as a result of worker‘s movements (close to trade unions). Some of them were at the beginning of the Russian Revolution ideologically quite quite close to communism (even saw this as the ultimate goal), over the years and decades almost all of them abandoned the idea of socialism in the meaning of implementing a plan economy. So social democrats has nowadays not much to do with socialism, certainly not in Europe.

If you also look at the European states which rank in the top 10 of the most competitive countries (WEF) [NL, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark], they all have significant Social Democrat parties, which are in government or were there over the last decades partially. And if they were socialist at its core, these countries certainly wouldnt rank in the top 10 in this index.

My point here is that socialism as a concept is broadly open to interpretation and many “normal” countries self-identify with this - trying saying France is not socialist in France, regardless that free market economics exist in parallel. These don’t necessarily rule out socialism existing in some form, as socialist policies don’t necessarily mean neoliberal policies don’t exist in some form. Hence it is a useless label to throw around, like neoliberal, as it simply too broad and like you say, does not exist in pure form.

The only pillar of “socialism” that exists in all “types” of socialism is one of social ownership, not centrally planned economies. This is something that exists in most countries, especially European countries, where the state has significant ownership of various enterprises and resources.

 

[Rich One]

My point here is that socialism as a concept is broadly open to interpretation and many “normal” countries self-identify with this - trying saying France is not socialist in France, regardless that free market economics exist in parallel. These don’t necessarily rule out socialism existing in some form, as socialist policies don’t necessarily mean neoliberal policies don’t exist in some form. Hence it is a useless label to throw around, like neoliberal, as it simply too broad and like you say, does not exist in pure form.

The only pillar of “socialism” that exists in all “types” of socialism is one of social ownership, not centrally planned economies. This is something that exists in most countries, especially European countries, where the state has significant ownership of various enterprises and resources.
[/QUOTE

How about China. President Xi has censored the publication of Thomas Picketty last Book" Capitalism and Ideology" , where he expands on the tremendous inequality in the Chinese Marxist Economy .
Xi had praised the previous book "Capital in the XXI Century" because Picketty seriously criticized Capitalism

China censuró al economista Thomas Piketty, autor del best seller “El Capital en el siglo XXI”

La edición de su último libro está frenada en el gigante asiático ya que el autor se rehúsa a eliminar los capítulos que hacen referencia a la desigualdad social hoy imperante en el país comunista

www.infobae.com