EyeSawYou

Many American millennials seem to be drawn to socialism. They came out in big numbers for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primaries. They rail against capitalism on their college campuses. They wear Che Guevara t-shirts to signal their socialist virtue.

I know a lot about socialism. I live in Rio de Janeiro, and I work throughout Brazil as a journalist for a popular magazine.

In the early 2000s, Brazil’s economy was growing rapidly. The government had enacted economic and monetary reforms and divested holdings in some state-run companies, giving the private sector more room to breathe. Inflation—a chronic problem in Brazil—was dramatically reduced. Foreign investors poured into the country, eager to catch a portion of our expanding economy. The future seemed promising.

But today, our economy is in shambles, unemployment and debt are massive, and powerful politicians are being investigated for involvement in the largest scandals of fraud and corruption in the country's history.

What happened?

In 2002, a socialist politician named Lula da Silva ran for the presidency. He was a socialist, but painted himself as a modern, cool kind of socialist. He would be the politician who would heal national divisions and unite everyone. He even had a nickname: “Lulinha paz e amor,” which means "Little Lula peace and love" in Portuguese.

But the old message about the need for income redistribution to decrease inequality was still there. The media, academic elite and celebrities assured Brazilians that by transferring the money from the rich to the poor, the poor could finally be richer. But the only ones who really got rich were Lula and his corporate and political friends. It only got worse under his successor, Dilma Rousseff.

The socialists increased government spending, deficits, and debt. They called it a “stimulus.” They increased the minimum wage and the benefits of social programs. They called it “social justice.” They increased the salaries and retirement benefits of the civil service. They called it “investing in the future.” They handed out thousands of jobs in the government and state-owned companies as favors to their political allies. And they called it “good governance.”

It worked for a while. Socialism always works at the beginning. But government spending just kept going up, and then Lula’s socialist paradise fell apart and the economy fell with it. The outcome: from 2008 to 2015, government spending grew nearly four times as fast as tax revenue.

The economy shrank 3.8 percent in 2015, the worst result in 25 years. That same year, a World Bank survey found Brazil’s economy to be one of the world’s worst. Out of 189 countries, we were the 16th hardest place to open a business, the 60th most difficult nation in which to register property, and the 12th most complex place to pay taxes.

Economically and morally, the almost 15 years of socialist policies have greatly harmed Brazil. We also remain among the world's leaders in murder and robbery, and we rank near the bottom of industrialized nations in terms of education and health care.

Americans take it for granted that they can be born into the lower class and reach the middle or even upper class. Many Brazilians take it for granted that they can’t.

But finally some things are starting to change. There may be reason for hope. Today, more and more Brazilians see that capitalism and limited government are the only way forward.

Thankfully for Brazil, Lula has been charged in several lawsuits for corruption, involvement in a criminal organization, influence peddling, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. Rousseff was impeached in 2016 for falsifying the government’s finances and illegally using money from state-owned banks to run the government. This crisis prompted the new government to freeze federal spending, reduce the government’s role in state-owned companies, and to encourage some of the massive federal workforce to resign.

No one knows whether these basic measures will be enough to rescue Brazil economically. Truthfully, the damage has been so extensive, it may take decades for the country to recover.

But if we do, it won’t be socialism that saves us.

American millennials, take note.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/foreign-affairs/how-socialism-ruined-my-country

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

And socialism is to communism what making out is to getting laid

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

we've depended on a combo of capitalism and socialism for our survival for the last 85 years.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Pretty eye-opening, Eye Saw You. I didn't know about Brazil's situation.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Wrong. The U.S. has been one of the least Socialistic places in the World up until eight years ago.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

BULLSHIT, check the encyclopedia for a full definition of socialism. most features of the "new deal" have socialist origins.

Dusty

Steven,

You lived dam well during Obamas 8 years. You are a big cry baby.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

Well - you may be right, but that does NOT make the comment to which you are referring wrong.

We have a lot of socialistic programs that serve as equalizers and safety nets. Without them we would have people dying in the streets. We would have rebellion and ongoing civil war. In one country I spent time in one of the mottos of the revolutionaries was something like: "I will be strong than you: you with your army and I with my hunger".

Consider: public education, social security, Medicare, laws that require hospitals to provide care for you whether you can pay or not, minimum wage laws, worker protection laws, child labor laws, environmental protection laws, food safety laws, and on and on. Money begets money. Power begets power. And without some brakes on that fact of life the poor and weak get stepped on and will eventually rise up. They generally do not win, but they force change that is so much better to develop peacefully.

Hugo Chavez, whom we all think of as a tyrant, and in some ways he was, used to refer to Socialism as being "Christianity in Action" - taking care of the poor. Providing health care, food, and education to those in need. Even China, Vietnam, and Cuba have adapted to the inherent failings of communism (people willing to work hard need incentive to do so or at least should not be actively discouraged from doing so!) and have allowed some aspects of capitalism to sneak in. A stable society needs some aspects of both. The "happiest" societies when surveyed are the Scandinavian countries who have a Democratic Socialist form of government. Of course, they also do not spend all their money on war.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Wow! What a cautionary tale! Sounds a lot like what what's going on here in Chiraq!

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

It is impossible to try and compare Scandinavian countries to the U.S. For one, they are all small and homogenous. Also, to be more accurate they are socialistic versus socialist, because all maintain private ownership of productive assets.

They all have high income tax rates, around 50-60% today, to promote massive social spending, but they aren't truly socialist. They do spend money on defense, but it's minimal at best (Norway is the biggest spender at 6 bil/yr, with Denmark and Finland spending tip money! The recent upswing in Russian aggressiveness has woken the Scandis up to the the need for more (finally), but they are starting behind the eight ball. Reasons for their low military spending include just depending on NATO and the U.S. To handle their security needs.

Now, here's a little secret........Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat as they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers. As an example, the top marginal tax rate of 60 percent in Denmark applies to all income over 1.2 times the average income in Denmark. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $60,000 (1.2 times the average income of about $50,000 in the United States) would be taxed at 60 percent!

Did I mention they are homogenous? Scandinavians follow "the law of Jante," or Janteloven, which they are taught from birth, that they, as individuals, are in no way special, that they are are inferior to society. This is a complete 180 from the U.S. where the right, power, and existence of the individual takes a strong precedent.

Janteloven has 10 commandments:

You’re not to think you are anything special.
You’re not to think you are as good as us.
You’re not to think you are smarter than us.
You’re not to convince yourself that you are better than us.
You’re not to think you know more than us.
You’re not to think you are more important than us.
You’re not to think you are good at anything.
You’re not to laugh at us.
You’re not to think anyone cares about you.
You’re not to think you can teach us anything.

Can you imagine even thinking U.S. parents would/could EVER raise their little darlings like

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Then point out the countries that were more capitalistic and less Socialistic than America.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

You are right that we do have some socialistic programs, but I disagree that people would be dying in the streets without them. Before the Roosevelt era we did not have people "dying in the streets." The United States had the highest standard of living in the entire World for most of its history, even before the Revolutionary War. Several of the things you mention are not due to Socialism. Worker Protection Laws, Child Labor Laws, Environmental Protection Laws, and Food Safety Laws are not strictly the result of Socialism, but of every normal civilised society. Modern Workers and Child labor protections started in England in the early 1800's. The Environmental movement had its origins in the U.S. and England in the middle to late 1800's.

You bring up Hugo Chavez, however his example is about the worst case you can make for Socialism. Like Cuba, he took one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America and turned it into one of the poorest, through Socialism. Right now they actually do have "people starving in the streets."

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

A great post! I just found this out myself a couple of years ago, the little secret that Scandinavian countries tax EVERYBODY at their high rates, even the poor. In the U.S., the rich bear the overwhelming majority of the taxes.

cwp3420

Once again, the biggest, most unintelligent troll on here, besides Keenan, has spoke.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

The essence of Capitalism is the everything has a price and anything can be bought & sold. So, we actually started to move toward socialism when we outlawed slavery.

Nothing is that article says how *socialism* caused all Brazil's problem. It only explains how CORRUPTION caused them.

Further, Socialism is an ECONOMIC system, not a political one. IF your problem is with politicians, that's not socialism.

Socialism closest political parallel is Democracy. Capitalism closest political parallel is a monarchy.