“I found you over here. Awesome. Let’s do this.

What this is, is a strawman. Not even #Bern is talking about nationalizing the means of production, so the “socialist” epithet is just overt scaremongering. Do better.

It is true that your premise, “They can’t point to any studies of the mechanics of socialism anywhere in the world” is factually accurate within a (very) narrow definition, but basically every country on the planet, including ours, is at least in some measure a social democracy already. It’s a matter of degree. Eh?”

I wrote,  on my website article, “Analyzing How Socialist Enterprises Work, A Cuban Case Study”.

“I accuse socialists of failing to analyze their own economic system and enterprises. Socialists are not interested in how socialism or even capitalism actually works. They are interested in Marxism and sloganism.”


First, “Not even #Bern is talking about nationalizing the means of production.” Oh, yes he is and even Obama and most of the Dems are saying the same thing: single payer health care. Which is a euphemism for socialized or nationalized health care. In the US that’s 16 % of the GDP. So, don’t tell me it’s not scaremongering.

The term, “social democracy” is not well defined and is not even well understood by Bernie. I’ll define it as Fabian Socialism. If you disagree, then tell me your variation.

Of course, governments do stupid things in every country. Which country do you know that doesn’t do stupid things? That’s why they have socialism. They allow stupid things to happen.

My mother taught me the lesson about “everybody else”. One evening when I was a young teenager, I wanted to join my friends outside after dark. When my mother said, “No”. I said, “But everybody else’s mother let’s them.” She replied, “I’m not everybody else’s mother.”

One thing to be clear about is the countries with the highest levels of socialism, about 95%, the “Warsaw Pact” countries, failed. The few remaining ones, Cuba, for example are miserable places to live. In 1994 64% of the Sweden’s GDP was  government expenditures. A close approximation, since technically all of that was not socialism. Police, courts, military are not socialism. When socialism is at let’s say 50% of GDP, as Sweden experienced it, the economy is unsustainable. To avoid bankruptcy Sweden had to privatize a lot of their failing socialist enterprises. The Economist has a great intro article to this. Socialism is not economically efficient or productive. All Nordic countries have abandoned as much socialism as possible. One of the remaining big ones, Noway’s Statoil,  is 67% owned by the government. It is far easier for a socialist enterprise to sell commodity-priced natural resources on a world market, that it is to design and sell cell phones. Extractive minerals works as a socialist enterprise because they are low innovation commodities and the market pricing and delivery is set on a private capitalist exchange.

There are broad areas of Western economies where socialism is used and where capitalism is used. Capitalism is the best producer of goods and services. Socialism is used in education, roads and transportation. Capitalism is used with highly innovative products. Even in companies where the technology is lower, but the consumer component is huge, such as clothes, restaurants, cars, and banking, capitalism has a huge advantage.

In all capitalist countries, socialism makes produces almost nothing. The Post Office only delivers mail. It doesn’t make the delivery vehicles or the sorting machines. I’ll bet it doesn’t even print the stamps. The military doesn’t design or build its war technology. Socialism only works where the innovation is low and the consumers are few or easy to identify.

Education, transportation and roads are the largest socialist institutions in the US. Education and transportation are operated by government because they want to control the delivery or distribution of the service, not its production. Public schools do not build the buildings, print the text books or make the pencil and paper. Private capitalist enterprises do that.

Municipal transportation was captured by local governments because it wanted to control the pricing of the service. The prices are set so low that all municipal transportation companies require taxes taken from the profit making capitalist world to sustain the loss making socialist transportation companies.

Only roads have any remote reason to be socialist. Acquiring titles, ownership and maintenance are just too difficult for most roads. It is too difficult to identify the users (consumers) of roads and so almost impossible to charge them. It would take a major leap in technology. It is easier to put up with the inefficiencies of government ownership. For now it is better to let government own the roads.

Back to education. My favorite country to shock people with about education is Holland. Most people knee jerk into thinking, European?, must be all public schools! Wrong. The majority of schools are operated by private entities.

There are school boards, but no school districts. Boards operate similar or related schools, but not inside a geographical area. There are no neighborhood school boundaries. The schools have to compete for students by offering diverse curricula and methodologies. You can only enter high school by examination. If you don’t meet the school’s criteria, you have to apply to another. In theory schools cannot discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, but they can on religion, just like a Catholic school can. Look at this site,

Just let me finish by saying that a socialist monopoly of schools is unnecessary and wasteful.

So, where does this get us? Socialism is not only unnecessary, it is wasteful and disruptive on the other. If people are unhappy with the distribution of income in society, it is not necessary for the government to actually own the enterprise itself. A better method would be to redistribute income in a reverse income scheme guaranteeing a basic level of income. Finland is moving in this direction.

While I disagree with a guaranteed minimum income, it would be better than all of the distortions caused by socialist enterprises. It would be a step back towards freedom and self-reliance. It would be a step toward a smaller government. It would also allow for about 75% of the bureaucrats to be relocated as employees in productive private companies.,education,Socialismcmbb, 'I found you over here. Awesome. Let’s do this. What this is, is a strawman. Not even #Bern is talking about nationalizing the means of production, so the “socialist” epithet is just overt scaremongering. Do better. It is true that your premise, “They can’t point to any studies of the mechanics...Countering the Myths of Economics and Politics