Rail network is a good example of why would a socialism system should perform better in short term because of :
Price of energy
(if subsidies used)
Lower price of work force
Easier acquisition of land (sometimes by force)
I agree that in capitalism vs socialism models in the same place for subject of rail it would be better to work under a socialism model (for a short term)
your example works when we talk about France under socialism vs France under capitalism but when it comes to France vs UK comparison in rail subject there are other considerations such as cost of whole project, it's necessity, benefits and ...
View attachment 917024
It helps a lot if you connect France through land to some of the wealthiest countries such as Italy ,Germany and Spain.
But building same length of railroad for UK would be much harder and more costlier and less productive.(both land and sea)
G
eography and size of your neighbors matters in this example.
A terminological precision if I may. France is not a socialist country. It has a capitalist economy. Just not the most savage form of capitalism out there. These terms describe economies as a whole, rather than specific sectors.
Now when it comes to the time horizon. The French national railway company SNCF was founded in 1938. Eighty-five years on, it's still offering satisfactory services as a state-owned company. So here we see that it's been a viable model over the long term as well.
Concerning economies of scale, I was not just referring to the extent of the network but also to its quality. When the UK privatized its railways, virtually everything went down the drain - infrastructures deteriorating, train services experiencing delays if not simply breaking down, technological progress stalling and so on. Clearly privatization was prejudicial to British railways. Now liberal economists argue that the privatization effort was incomplete because the government retained some regulatory powers and what not. But when compared to France, there's no question that the latter has been more successful during this period.
As far as connectivity to cross-border networks, the UK is actually linked to continental Europe by rail. The so-called Eurostar HSR travels through the Manche tunnel between the British isle and France. From there passengers have access to the rest of the European network. Eurostar itself offers direct services between London and Paris, London and Marne-la-Vallée (where "Euro Disneyland" is located) in the eastern suburbs of Paris, as well as from London to Brussels and Amsterdam.
Historically the UK has been a pioneer in railway development. Hence why their network is actually dense and its total length pretty elevated.
Or consider the amount of rail they constructed throughout their South Asian colonial possessions.
In other words, the UK hasn't been suffering any disadvantage in this regard. The infrastructure has been in place for a long time. However privatizing their railways didn't help in terms of network modernization and upkeep, nor in terms of service quality for passengers.
A better comparison would be in the field of education (which almost in any system in this world is a socialism tool).
Is education in more pro socialism system like France works better or is it better in a more pro capitalism system like UK ?
Generally speaking education has become fraught with certain issues in the west because of political factors. But leaving this aside for a minute, the French public education system can indeed pride itself of a significant historic record, especially on four points:
- The high percentage of people with A level diplomas in France. Granted, these include vocational diplomas and the contrast is strong between schools depending on their geographical location (it won't be quite the same in a suburban ghetto of greater Paris like the 93 department and in a bourgeois inner city neighborhood like the 7th district). We can also debate whether the French system, which tries to produce as many A level graduates as possible is really preferable to say, a German type of system where they separate pupils quite early on between three different kinds of schools offering CSE, GSCE and A level diplomas respectively. But still, it's an achievement in its own right.
- Eite centers of higher learning. Most are public establishments but recruit via competition exams (i.e. candidates are ranked as in Iran's
konkur). They offer very high level education. This has somewhat regressed with their integration into globalized university networks, however they're still up there in comparison.
- Post-doctoral scientific research. French academia has been of quality, producing a significant share of erudite and prize winning scientists.
- The relative prevalence of state-owned schools and universities resulted in somewhat of a democratization of (higher) education and facilitated access for students with modest financial means. As in every capitalist society, the hereditary nature of education has not been erased, and I believe it intensified in recent decades with ongoing liberalization (this is an assumption, I'd need to verify), but thanks to its structure the system held this in check to some degree.
Then look at the UK. How they gradually set up a debt trap for university students similar to the USA. With those originating from less affluent backgrounds forced to pay back loans and interests for the the better part of their active lives because of constantly rising tuition fees. With British politicians making false pledges, students going on strike etc. Utterly disgraceful.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46781569
Plans to increase university fees get through the Commons, despite a Lib Dem rebellion and a Westminster protest by students.
www.bbc.com
https://www.channel4.com/news/factc...nts-have-been-misled-and-lied-to-for-20-years
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/19/nick-clegg-apologies-tuition-fees-pledge
Vince Cable and David Laws join Nick Clegg in apologising for the Lib Dems breaking their pledge to oppose increasing student tuition fees.
www.bbc.co.uk
Another example would be in the field of industry,
Were Iranians happier with their car makers and their production of Peykan (UK) or they were happier with their Peugeot (France) production ? (in their own era)
Peugeot-Citroën (PSA), which in 2019 merged with Fiat-Chrysler, has been a private company from the start. So was Peugeot itself since its foundation in 1858.
, I wonder ...
www.scimagojr.com
www.presstv.ir
