A successful socialist economy

[Hermit]

I went looking for the poll that had only 9% of Swedes identifying as Socialists, but all I could find are articles mentioning the poll.

I could not find it either, but while looking for it stumbled across this poll conducted by IPSOS in April 2018. It was titled "Attitudes towards Socialist Ideals in the 21st Century". The first question was: Do you agree or disagree with the following statements: - at present, socialist ideals are of great value for societal progress? 51% of Swedes agreed.

This is not evidence that Sweden is a socialist country, but it does show that a slim majority of Swedes approves of socialist ideals.

 

[bilby]

The funny thing about the Scandinavian countries is that they deny that they are socialist. They say they are not Socialist.

Perhaps we should look for an example of a country that call themselves socialist to find an example of a socialist economy.

The funny thing about Americans is that they give a shit what is or is not called ‘socialist’, because in America the word carries a huge amount of baggage that was pinned on it during the Cold War.

Meanwhile the rest of the English speaking world couldn’t give a crap whether any particular policy, program, nation, or person is ‘socialist’ or not. Because the word isn’t important.

So we discuss policies, programs, nations and people, taking an interest in them, perhaps supporting or opposing specific ideas - until someone casually refers to something as ‘socialist’, at which point an American (or a whole group of them) will pop up and shit all over discussion of ideas, by spamming the conversation with pointless debate about what the word ‘socialist’ means.

Like all words, it means what its users use it to mean.

That you dislike that, and disagree with it, is noted, and has been given the priority and attention it deserves. Now if you could just be quiet for a few moments, the grownups are trying to have a conversation.

 

[DrZoidberg]

He also talked about the "dictatorship of the proletariat". For the attentive reader, that is a contradiction in terms. The term dictator comes from the Roman Republic and was always just one person. Marx was incredibly well read. He knew that absurdity in saying that a mass of people should have dictatorial powers as if they are just one. Clearly he didn't mean that. He also didn't mean that the middle-class, priests and aristocrats should be disempowered. He wanted them to be included into the proletariat. He didn't specify any of this because he didn't know. All he knew is that once capitalists and aristocrats have been defanged things will be different.

Sure he specified it -- he said the Paris Commune was the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The Paris commune came 20 years after he formulated these ideas. The commune was a first experimental attempt to put his ideas into practice. It lasted a total of two months. It barely got going. Not long enough for abuses of power to become a problem. Direct democratic processes seemed to actually work.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The funny thing about the Scandinavian countries is that they deny that they are socialist. They say they are not Socialist.

Perhaps we should look for an example of a country that call themselves socialist to find an example of a socialist economy.

I have noticed it to. I don't understand this need to deny it. To me it's pretty obvious that we're still deeply socialist. I think the reason Scandinavians often deny it is because they think it will scare away American investors. It's the only reason I can think of. Scandinavian countries are very entrepreneurial and start-up friendly. I think the line of reasoning is, "if starting a company is so easy and smooth here it must mean that we're not socialist". That's just a backward way to argue. I think it's our socialism that allows us to be entrepreneurial. Starting companies here is risk free. If you fail, crash and burn, society will take care of you. Your kids will keep getting the same top quality education. You will get exactly the same health care. Besides you going out less to restaurants, less trips to the tropics and less luxury consumption the lifestyle of a failed and a successful entrepreneur is almost the same. To me this is at the heart of what socialism is.

Today's drama at work. Someone forgot to invite the cleaners to the annual company party. In Scandinavia that's a big boo boo. Those at the bottom of the hierarchy are treated the nicest at company events.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Let us take a look at what it would mean if Swedish socialism were implemented in the US.

1. More free trade
2. A more deregulated product market
3. No Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
4. The abolition of occupational licensing and minimum wage laws
5. The abolition of taxes on property, gifts, and inheritance
6. A reduction of the corporate tax rate
7. America would need to reform Social Security from defined benefits to defined contributions and introduce private accounts
8. The US would also need to adopt a comprehensive school voucher system where private schools get the same per‐pupil funding as public ones.

Very socialist, right?

 

[Hermit]

Let us take a look at what it would mean if Swedish socialism were implemented in the US.

1. More free trade
2. A more deregulated product market
3. No Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
4. The abolition of occupational licensing and minimum wage laws
5. The abolition of taxes on property, gifts, and inheritance
6. A reduction of the corporate tax rate
7. America would need to reform Social Security from defined benefits to defined contributions and introduce private accounts
8. The US would also need to adopt a comprehensive school voucher system where private schools get the same per‐pupil funding as public ones.

Very socialist, right?

Ack. How many more times? Socialism and capitalism do not preclude each other. The subset of socialism - communism - and capitalism do.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Let us take a look at what it would mean if Swedish socialism were implemented in the US.

1. More free trade
2. A more deregulated product market
3. No Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
4. The abolition of occupational licensing and minimum wage laws
5. The abolition of taxes on property, gifts, and inheritance
6. A reduction of the corporate tax rate
7. America would need to reform Social Security from defined benefits to defined contributions and introduce private accounts
8. The US would also need to adopt a comprehensive school voucher system whe. private schools get the same per‐pupil funding as public ones.

Very socialist, right?

Actually yes. The point of socialism is equal opportunity. Not equal outcome.

What makes a country socialist is it's values. Not necessarily the policies.

 

[ZiprHead]

Let us take a look at what it would mean if Swedish socialism were implemented in the US.

1. More free trade
2. A more deregulated product market
3. No Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
4. The abolition of occupational licensing and minimum wage laws
5. The abolition of taxes on property, gifts, and inheritance
6. A reduction of the corporate tax rate
7. America would need to reform Social Security from defined benefits to defined contributions and introduce private accounts
8. The US would also need to adopt a comprehensive school voucher system where private schools get the same per‐pupil funding as public ones.

Very socialist, right?

Doesn't sound great when you only tell half the story.

The Swedish have a 70% labor union participation rate. Their CEO to worker pay ratio is far smaller than here in the US. They have one of the highest mean and median incomes in the world. And they do have a central bank that controls monetary policies, the Riksbank.

Very socialist, right?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Let us take a look at what it would mean if Swedish socialism were implemented in the US.

1. More free trade
2. A more deregulated product market
3. No Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
4. The abolition of occupational licensing and minimum wage laws
5. The abolition of taxes on property, gifts, and inheritance
6. A reduction of the corporate tax rate
7. America would need to reform Social Security from defined benefits to defined contributions and introduce private accounts
8. The US would also need to adopt a comprehensive school voucher system where private schools get the same per‐pupil funding as public ones.

Very socialist, right?

Doesn't sound great when you only tell half the story.

The Swedish have a 70% labor union participation rate. Their CEO to worker pay ratio is far smaller than here in the US. They have one of the highest mean and median incomes in the world. And they do have a central bank that controls monetary policies, the Riksbank.

Very socialist, right?

It's also funny how many private employers in Scandinavia insist on negotiating salaries with the union, forcing non-union members to accept whatever salaries is negotiated. So a non-union employee in those companies couldn't get an individually set salary no matter how much they demanded it. It's not a bad system since it frees up precious time for the employers to focus on running the company rather than re-nogiating salaries ever so often.

Worth noting is that Scandinavian unions don't try to get as much money as possible for their employees. They try to get what is considered reasonable salaries. Most often employers often make an offer, and the union lays down flat immediately, because the offer is what the union expects. Because the unions have published lists in advance for what they think various jobs should get. And companies most often agree.

Scandinavia operates in a high trust environment. It's an incredibly easy system to take advantage of. And many do. Immigrants come and get rich, and then realize that Swedish women don't care if they are rich. They care if they are humble and hard working. So they eventually calm down and then start working within the system. It's a process that repeats itself for every wave of immigration Sweden gets. It is a dying culture though. The world is too integrated today to keep this weird and extreme Scandinavian culture going. Mobility and the need for multi-culturalism will eventually kill this culture.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Scandinavia operates in a high trust environment. It's an incredibly easy system to take advantage of. And many do. Immigrants come and get rich, and then realize that Swedish women don't care if they are rich. They care if they are humble and hard working. So they eventually calm down and then start working within the system. It's a process that repeats itself for every wave of immigration Sweden gets. It is a dying culture though. The world is too integrated today to keep this weird and extreme Scandinavian culture going. Mobility and the need for multi-culturalism will eventually kill this culture.

Here's a good video on why this Swedish culture is dying. Since immigrants aren't the best as figuring out the social codes of Sweden (they're very convoluted and nuanced, and aren't explained to immigrants, because ethnic Swedes just take them for granted) it acts to socially exclude immigrants from mainstream Swedish society. Especially immigrants from poor countries.

And I want to be totally clear on this, this is not the fault of immigrants. Sweden did this to themselves. The immigrants are just responding to incentives trying to make the best of a shitty situation. Swedes can't really complain if we create a situation where we welcome immigrants with open arms to live here, but refuse to give them jobs and give them as their only options a life of crime or a life on welfare. Perhaps we could have retained this culture if we'd have lower immigration rates. But I think we're past the point of no return. Perhaps in an increasingly globalized world it would have been inevitable.

But Sweden's extremely fast expanding tech scene has been screaming for more workers for decades. Our current economy demands higher immigration rates. So the situation might be, good riddance to the ancient Viking ways. Perhaps it is necessary. Perhaps we need this painful jolt into a more open and globalized world. Perhaps. Either way. I doubt it's possible to go back to the old ways.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ack. How many more times? Socialism and capitalism do not preclude each other. The subset of socialism - communism - and capitalism do.

Are you hoping that if you repeat it enough it will become true?

Actually yes. The point of socialism is equal opportunity. Not equal outcome.

What makes a country socialist is it's values. Not necessarily the policies.

Oh that is rich. "It is working so I will call it Socialism" is apparently the new definition of Socialism.

Socialism is defined by the policies, just like Capitalism is defined by the policies, Monetarism is defined by the policies, Keynesianism is defined by the policies, Supply-Side is defined by the policies, Demand-Side is defined by the policies, and corporatism is defined by the policies.

If socialists only cared about outcomes, they would all be capitalists.

 

[Hermit]

Ack. How many more times? Socialism and capitalism do not preclude each other. The subset of socialism - communism - and capitalism do.

Are you hoping that if you repeat it enough it will become true?

It is true. I have explained why in posts # 5, 70, 121, 145 and 165.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ack. How many more times? Socialism and capitalism do not preclude each other. The subset of socialism - communism - and capitalism do.

Are you hoping that if you repeat it enough it will become true?

Actually yes. The point of socialism is equal opportunity. Not equal outcome.

What makes a country socialist is it's values. Not necessarily the policies.

Oh that is rich. "It is working so I will call it Socialism" is apparently the new definition of Socialism.

Socialism is defined by the policies, just like Capitalism is defined by the policies, Monetarism is defined by the policies, Keynesianism is defined by the policies, Supply-Side is defined by the policies, Demand-Side is defined by the policies, and corporatism is defined by the policies.

My definition of socialism is based on how self defined socialist governments have changed their policies over time, and what they're actually doing. Socialism has got to be what socialist governments do. That's how we define any political ideology. That's why "socialism" and "communism" today are not synonyms, while 106 years ago they were.

If socialists only cared about outcomes, they would all be capitalists.

Nobody only cares about outcomes. We all care about how we got there and if the price was worth paying.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ack. How many more times? Socialism and capitalism do not preclude each other. The subset of socialism - communism - and capitalism do.

Are you hoping that if you repeat it enough it will become true?

It is true. I have explained why in posts # 5, 70, 121, 145 and 165.

And you were wrong in posts #5, 70, 121, 145, and 165. Repeating it again won't change that.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Socialism is defined by the policies, just like Capitalism is defined by the policies, Monetarism is defined by the policies, Keynesianism is defined by the policies, Supply-Side is defined by the policies, Demand-Side is defined by the policies, and corporatism is defined by the policies.

My definition of socialism is based on how self defined socialist governments have changed their policies over time, and what they're actually doing. Socialism has got to be what socialist governments do. That's how we define any political ideology. That's why "socialism" and "communism" today are not synonyms, while 106 years ago they were.

That's an interesting definition. I was about to call it "useless" but then I remembered that Sweden does NOT define itself as a socialist government so everyone here should stop using it as an example.

That's yet another reason why a policy based definition works better. Of course, under a policy based definition, Sweden would still NOT be socialist.

If socialists only cared about outcomes, they would all be capitalists.

Nobody only cares about outcomes. We all care about how we got there and if the price was worth paying.

Alright then. If socialists cared about outcomes, they would all be capitalists.