The celebrities in the video below used to speak the same way you do now.... As I've already pointed out: Socialism and Comunnism are the same... Saying they are different is complete bullshit. Everyone of these begins by saying it is socialism, but when they start to kill people they say it is communism. Chavez was from the United SOCIALIST Party. You might want to read "The Road to Serfdom" from Hayek. This book would make it clear where your mistake is. And the european countries you mentioned are still afloat because of the capilalist part of their economy and DESPITE the socialist parts. If the socialist part didn't exist, they would be MUCH BETTER OFF. But this has already been discussed here. You're just another one who wants to live in your dream world. Be my guest... I don't give a shit.
The US political system is geared up for the rich only, by having a 2 party state. The minor parties that try are not able to match the Democratic and Republicans in terms of money ( bribes ) to spend. The Democrats were under the Clinton's thumb, who are very wealthy. Ditto the Republicans under Trump. Government in the US is therefore more or less for sale to the highest briber. Although Trump did put forward some policies. Henry Ford squashed the socialist unions at Fords by force and bully boy tactics under his hitman Bennet in the 1930s. Will Socialism ever get a look in ? Not a chance, as the US is ruled by greed and fear.
What you just described, relating to both parties, is SOCIALISM AT IT'S BEST: CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER EVERYTHING OR A LARGE PART OF THE ECONOMY. Regardless of party, if you centralize power in one place, that power will be abused. Every socialist government is elected by "the working class". Venezuela being the latest example of this. In countries where socialists overthrow the previous government, the same "working class" applauds (USSR, Cuba...). And they do that because of the promises made by the socialists who took over. Soon enough, either what you described happens(which is, despite what most americans would like to admit, the "Putin way" of doing things) or they simply start to kill people that dissent from their views. See the 5 min video on the immorality of socialism I posted above. SOCIALISM IS FORCE. By definition, to have socialism, you have to have a powerful centralized government, so you can force the people that won't voluntarily comply with the socialist policies to do it. That, as history shows, will always be abused by those in power for their own personal benefit and that's why in countries that socialism policies are EFFECTIVELY applied, sooner or later, people start to be killed and the productive people leave the country, which results in situations like we see in Venezuela. The solution: shrink the power of government(regardless of side or party) to the smallest possible, so that no individual or small group has the power to exploit the biggest part of the economy and ultimately the biggest part of the people. This is the OPPOSITE of socialism at it's core, because as I said, no central powerful authority will exist, which is the FUNDAMENTAL REQUESITE for socialism.
LOL the most moral of all systems. "In a perfect world". In the real world Communism/Socialism (same thing) has only meant a whole lot of suffering for the masses while the elites live large.
The African experience seems to have chaotic Govts. with continual skirmishing between tribes and countries. Colonialism tended to break down the old bonds/antagonisms between tribes/countries with new borders and allegiences.
I think some perspective on the variety of systems is important. This list is light on capitalism, but can't be bothered looking for better however as there is no functioning pure capitalist system about.. can't be helped maybe. SOCIALISM: You have two cows. State takes one and give it to someone else. COMMUNISM: You have two cows. State takes both of them and gives you milk. FASCISM: You have two cows. State takes both of them and sell you milk. NAZISM: You have two cows. State takes both of them and shoot you. BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. State takes both of them, kill one and spill the milk in system of sewage. CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Alternative: A COWSMIC VIEW OF WORLD ORGANIZATION FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk. PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need. BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as the regulations say you should need. FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk. PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk. RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you. SINGAPORE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed animals in an apartment. MILITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you. PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk. AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate". BRITISH DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You feed them sheep's brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything. BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows. ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors kill you and take the cows. CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. HONG KONG CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the Feng Shui is bad. ENVIRONMENTALISM: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them. FEMINISM: You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf. TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: You are associated with (the concept of "ownership"is a symbol of the phallo-centric, war-mongering, intolerant past) two differently-aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender. COUNTER CULTURE: Wow, dude, there's like... these two cows, man. You got to have some of this milk. Far out! Awesome! SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons. JAPANESE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You give the milk to gangsters so they don't ask any awkward questions about who you're giving the milk to. EUROPEAN FEDERALISM: You have two cows which cost too much money to care for because everybody is buying milk imported from some cheap east-European country and would never pay the fortune you'd have to ask for your cows' milk. So you apply for financial aid from the European Union to subsidise your cows and are granted enough subsidies. You then sell your milk at the former elevated price to some government-owned distributor which then dumps your milk onto the market at east-European prices to make Europe competitive. You spend the money you got as a subsidy on two new cows and then go on a demonstration to Brussels complaining that the European farm-policy is going drive you out of your job. EASTERN EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. You sell the milk (diluted with some water) at a high price to the neighbors or to anyone at the open-air market. If somebody asks for receipt, you charge for a two times higher price, so nobody will request an invoice. For concerned families with small babies you claim that the milk is "bio", though you collect the grass for feeding at the side of the highway and you keep the milk in plastic barrels used previously as containers of dangerous chemicals. Later, your neighbor or anybody from town will steal the cows and will buy their meat for a high price, and if you ask for a receipt, you will be charged for a two times higher price. FINNISH SOCIALISM: You have two cows. Soon you have to kill one of them because in the Netherlands there is an overproduction of milk and the European Union rules say so. When you do so, you realize that it was not necessary, only the system was too slow in getting you the up-to-date news. From the stress, you get an ulcer in your stomach so you go to a doctor. The doctor realizes that this ulcer is a serious one, so you need an urgent treatment. Therefore, you soon get a call to the local hospital. The call's date is for 3 months later, because there is a queue with more urgent cases. Then your ulcer becomes even more serious because you remember that 40 percent of your income is taken for social tax.
A powerful , measured monthly bid for US treasuries supports heavy governement deficit spending at a very low interest rates further encouraging deficit spending. This lasted up to 2013 whereafter rollovers still added 200bil bid. US gov. spending is certainly an input to GDP buffering the tapped put citizen so fed actions are certainly related to GDP. Now that new deficit service costs are rising and tax receipts will be down the Us gov. Wont be contributing to GDP through originally intended picks and shovels acting on roads and bridges. Maybe China will pick up the slack this year and bid strongly for treasury securities .....or am I out of the news cycle?
Pure capitalism, I thought of an obvious example, our good buddy, Pablo Escobar. In an Ayan Randian world where only the most brutal are the smart ones, Pablo showed the way to the NeoTrader's of the world. Take, own, expand and anyone who gets in your way, not a problem as that is the nature of life. Richest man in the world nearly, absolutely self-made and his light to the world stuffed out by the USA. Maybe time to cut loose and really let one of your guys in Brazil rise to the top NeoTrader? Time to sharpen those elbows and save Brazil lad. Pure socialism does not work, pure capitalism does not work out so why not stick in the realm of reality gentlemen?