Socialism Leads to Higher Physical Quality of Life


“In 28 of 30 comparisons between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL outcomes.”

“In the less developed countries, the differences in PQL between the capitalist and socialist systems are profound. There, the options in public health and education that a socialist political-economic system provides seem to overcome some of the grueling deprivations of poverty.”

“Our findings indicate that countries with socialist political-economic systems can make great strides toward meeting basic human needs, even without extensive economic resources.”

Goly gee, it’s almost as if a system that values humanity over profit serves humanity better.


The U.S. is socialist too cause Socialism is when the government does stuff


Clearly the key to making the more capitalist countries preform better than more socialist ones here is to make the under-preforming countries with larger private sectors even more private.


As you can see, humanity is actually more free when a small group of people control everything because if we give the oligarchs more power they will learn responsibility. Also Socialism won’t work cause of my human nature


Socialism is obviously oppressive too. These commies say they want to liberate the working class from oppression, but they want to take away power from individuals who suppress the wealth and prosperity of essentially all working peoples, and that’s just wrong. It is clearly wrong to take away from oppressors and give to the oppressed.


Socialism is when the rich become richer and the poor become poorer.


The countries that had the highest PQLI were high-income capitalist countries though. Also this paper is over 30 years old lol.


I love the Socialist country pool they took from. USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Mongolia, North Korea, Albania.

Most of these places abandoned Socialism today (note the study was taken 30 years ago). China took in corporatism, Mongolia abandoned Socialism in '92, Yugoslavia failed, Romania’s Socialist president was executed for crimes against Yugoslavia, Poland went through the Balcerowicz Plan, North Korea has to build walls to keep people in, Bulgaria’s Socialist government failed and was replaced, East Germany morphed with West Germany, Albania stopped being Socialist in '92 (they did elect the Socialist party in 2013 though) and Cuba is the most successful Socialist country on the planet.

It’s almost as if most Socialist countries fail because collectivization, high tax, and limited freedoms are not very good compared to private ownership, low tax, and nearly total freedom; who would have thought.


Higher income socialist countries also had higher PQLs than lower income socialist countries. The purpose of this study was to examine how effectively these eocnomic systems distributed resources given similar levels of economic development.

It’s old but it hasn’t lost but all it’s value. It showed how the systems of those countries did at that time.


The reasons you mentioned for those countries failures really don’t demonstrate that socialism is ineffective and unsustainable in and of itself. While many of those countries do have issues with authoritarianism, and that is why I don’t want the government to own all industry, it does show that collectivization can be quite successful. So no, it’s not almost as if working for human need rather than profit caused these countries to collapse.


Keep drinking that kool-aid.


What an excellent retort.
If you want to talk about listening to a false narrative, the “information” we are fed by the capitalists that have an interest in preserving the status quo are not quite trust worthy.


When you insult people it does about as much to help your argument as jacking off everyone in a 5 mile radius of the nearest Pizza Hut, probably less in fact


The problem is he is denying that Socialism is both authoritarian and a efficient economic system. People should take just as much out of his statements as they should my insults. Either way he is wrong and should not be taken seriously.


Yes, but you said: “Socialism Leads to Higher Physical Quality of Life”. The highest physical quality of life seen in the paper are capitalist countries. That runs counter to what you said.


It’s not inherently authoritarian though. It exists both conceptually and has existed in practice. You literally can’t deny it.

In serving human needs over profit, it is more efficient. Socialism directly serves human needs, whereas as the meeting of some human needs under capitalism is a by-product of the profit motive.

Care to legitimately substantiate that claim?


No it doesn’t. Given similar levels of economic development, socialism leads to higher PQL. Of course countries that are more developed are going to tend to have higher PQL, regardless of economic system. My statements are consistent, socialism distributes the same amount of goods and services more efficiently (in terms of serving human need) than capitalism.


But if you want to distribute resources you need resources to distribute. To have a socialist economy you need an actual market and economy.

That’s why social democracy makes a lot more sense to me. Humans are inherently motivated by self-interest. Thus with socdems you preserve that ability and encouragement for the individual to succeed while humanizing the system to provide for the needy and downtrodden. It’s a win-win


I understand where you are coming from, as I was a socdem for quite a while, as I believed that socialism could not adequately produce resources. However, I realIss this to be a falsehood, especially in lieu of the fact that market socialism exists as well. There is plenty of innovation under socialism, The government is actually quite good at R&D, and it is silly to dismiss this claim when so much innovation in our society has come from such. Not to mention that the USSR, while it did have problems with violent authoritarianism, demonstrated the power of the public sector. It went from a largely rural, agrarian society, to an industrialized society in around a decade, and not only that, but became the first society to make it into space. Calorie consumption per person in the USSR was higher than that of the US till neoliberal reforms in the 1980s. Economic growth and production exist under socialism, AND it is more efficient in distributing resources for human need.


But look at the cost of that industrialization, not only in Russia but also in China. Look at how many people starved to death or were killed for dissenting against the govt.