The ineffable quality of socialism....

[DrZoidberg]

A balance is called for. A middle path.

Isn't that what we have now?

Depends....can it be said that the socialist, capitalist balance is the same everywhere, that the US is on a par with Denmark or Norway? Or that more cannot be done to help the lower socioeconomic sector?

The idea that economic policy in any way should be manipulated in order to help the poor, is straight up socialism. That way of thinking didn't exist before socialism. In the olden days the rules of the market were nebulous and couldn't be messed with. It was basically magic. The nobles leaned on the poor as much as possible to enrich themselves. Then Merkantilism popped up. Which was the same thing except that it was the "nation" that leaned on the peasants instead of the nobles. That was replaced by economic liberalism. Which stated that the poor and destitute deserved to die, and if they couldn't make it on their own, they should die. It was for the good of the nation as a whole. Helping them would only lead to more poverty. Socialism came as a reaction to that. And that's still the world we're living in now.

I'd argue that any national government that in any shape or form helps the poor is a socialist government. At least according post WW1 Socialist thinkers and politicians, who came to shape what socialism is in the west. And in extension won almost every democratic election since then. The political history of the first half of 20th century is nothing but a slow and steady march of socialism until the 1950s ca had conquered the entire western world. Today we are so immersed in socialist thinking that we can barely identify it; even when we vote for it.

The only reason we don't identify the current ruling political paradigm in the west as socialist has only to do with the Soviet Union. It became important for the lovers of freedom and democracy to reformulate their clearly socialist ideas and ideals as Liberal, and today even Conservative. But that's more a marketing thing than reality. It's always cracked me up when two supporters of various versions of socialist policies accuse each other of being a socialist.

Subsidized housing in the United States = straight up Communism.

If by balance you mean a society 99% socialist with a sprinkling of capitalism on the top, then yes sure, we live in a society where socialism and capitalism is balanced.

People today are so mollycoddled and protected that they have no idea of the horrors a totally free market unleashes. Or even a little bit free. Capitalism today is held in the shortest leash possible by governments. And that's how we like it. The differences between western countries today are tiny, and all are socialist/communist by 19th century standards.

 

[untermensche]

Capitalists run the government with their corrupt paid lackeys.

They make most of the rules.

They don't like the idea of a national health insurance because health insurance corporations are able to take trillions out of the health care system in the form of profits and executive perks. And because corporate executives don't want a national health insurance there has not been one many decades after poorer nations had one.

When the people actually get something for their tax dollars that makes their life easier it is attacked and degraded by the corrupt supporters of corporate domination.

 

[Swammerdami]

Capitalists run the government with their corrupt paid lackeys.

They make most of the rules.

They don't like the idea of a national health insurance because health insurance corporations are able to take trillions out of the health care system in the form of profits and executive perks. And because corporate executives don't want a national health insurance there has not been one many decades after poorer nations had one.

When the people actually get something for their tax dollars that makes their life easier it is attacked and degraded by the corrupt supporters of corporate domination.

Some corporations want to keep the present system — employers providing health insurance — because it makes it difficult for employees to seek a better job elsewhere. Employees are fearful of getting worse health insurance, or none at all. Even spending a few weeks without health insurance is a big risk, given America's high medical costs and lack of public support.

Some pimps like to addict their girls to heroin — it gives them more control. Are American employers similar?

 

[untermensche]

Health insurance tied to a job definitely gives employers power.

Many people would work fewer hours if they didn't need to meet the hourly requirements for health insurance.

People would be a little less desperate.

That is the opposite of what a good capitalist wants.

 

[Rhea]

The only reason we don't identify the current ruling political paradigm in the west as socialist has only to do with the Soviet Union. It became important for the lovers of freedom and democracy to reformulate their clearly socialist ideas and ideals as Liberal, and today even Conservative. But that's more a marketing thing than reality. It's always cracked me up when two supporters of various versions of socialist policies accuse each other of being a socialist.

And, to be honest, I think a lot of the US conservative political sphere knows this. They do the socialism that they want and avoid the word. Then they see the other side do the same thing and shout that it is socialism, just to win an election.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Health insurance tied to a job definitely gives employers power.

I'd say it is more that it used to be a benefit and the reality becomes people can't swap profession easily much less because of money, but because of health insurance. A family might be able to scrounge a bit with savings for a few months, but the insurance bill is another mortgage without the massive subsidies we've grown to accept as a society, coming from the companies we work for. So I'd say it is less a tool of employers to keep people trapped. Indeed, if an employer is paying enough to consider it a trap, they are indeed paying a lot. And it is out of their pocket.

It is a broken system nationally.

 

[untermensche]

Health insurance tied to a job definitely gives employers power.

I'd say it is more that it used to be a benefit and the reality becomes people can't swap profession easily much less because of money, but because of health insurance. A family might be able to scrounge a bit with savings for a few months, but the insurance bill is another mortgage without the massive subsidies we've grown to accept as a society, coming from the companies we work for. So I'd say it is less a tool of employers to keep people trapped. Indeed, if an employer is paying enough to consider it a trap, they are indeed paying a lot. And it is out of their pocket.

It is a broken system nationally.

It is money the employees are making with their combined labor.

They are paying for it.

It is not just coming out of some parasite at the top's pocket.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The only reason we don't identify the current ruling political paradigm in the west as socialist has only to do with the Soviet Union. It became important for the lovers of freedom and democracy to reformulate their clearly socialist ideas and ideals as Liberal, and today even Conservative. But that's more a marketing thing than reality. It's always cracked me up when two supporters of various versions of socialist policies accuse each other of being a socialist.

And, to be honest, I think a lot of the US conservative political sphere knows this. They do the socialism that they want and avoid the word. Then they see the other side do the same thing and shout that it is socialism, just to win an election.

We think in dichotomies, so we think that conservatives and liberals are opposites. But they're not.

Conservatives used to be for monarchy and merkantilism. Liberals used to be for unrestrained markets and personal freedom.

Today both conservatives and liberals want maximal personal freedom. What they disagree on is how fast we change society in getting there. That is barely different ideologies. The differences are tiny

 

[DBT]

Depends....can it be said that the socialist, capitalist balance is the same everywhere, that the US is on a par with Denmark or Norway? Or that more cannot be done to help the lower socioeconomic sector?

The idea that economic policy in any way should be manipulated in order to help the poor, is straight up socialism. That way of thinking didn't exist before socialism. In the olden days the rules of the market were nebulous and couldn't be messed with. It was basically magic. The nobles leaned on the poor as much as possible to enrich themselves. Then Merkantilism popped up. Which was the same thing except that it was the "nation" that leaned on the peasants instead of the nobles. That was replaced by economic liberalism. Which stated that the poor and destitute deserved to die, and if they couldn't make it on their own, they should die. It was for the good of the nation as a whole. Helping them would only lead to more poverty. Socialism came as a reaction to that. And that's still the world we're living in now.

I'd argue that any national government that in any shape or form helps the poor is a socialist government. At least according post WW1 Socialist thinkers and politicians, who came to shape what socialism is in the west. And in extension won almost every democratic election since then. The political history of the first half of 20th century is nothing but a slow and steady march of socialism until the 1950s ca had conquered the entire western world. Today we are so immersed in socialist thinking that we can barely identify it; even when we vote for it.

The only reason we don't identify the current ruling political paradigm in the west as socialist has only to do with the Soviet Union. It became important for the lovers of freedom and democracy to reformulate their clearly socialist ideas and ideals as Liberal, and today even Conservative. But that's more a marketing thing than reality. It's always cracked me up when two supporters of various versions of socialist policies accuse each other of being a socialist.

Subsidized housing in the United States = straight up Communism.

If by balance you mean a society 99% socialist with a sprinkling of capitalism on the top, then yes sure, we live in a society where socialism and capitalism is balanced.

People today are so mollycoddled and protected that they have no idea of the horrors a totally free market unleashes. Or even a little bit free. Capitalism today is held in the shortest leash possible by governments. And that's how we like it. The differences between western countries today are tiny, and all are socialist/communist by 19th century standards.

Policies may be socialist in principle without being labelled "Socialism." Good governance of a nation state where the vulnerable are cared for and offered opportunities they would otherwise not have is not necessarily a Socialist State. It may be a blend of socialism and capitalism.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Policies may be socialist in principle without being labelled "Socialism."

Sure. But it would be newspeak. That's relabeling words for propaganda purposes. While easy in the short term. In the long term you will do nothing but create confusion about the terms. Why not instead stop vilifying socialism? Why not call a spade a spade?

Good governance of a nation state where the vulnerable are cared for and offered opportunities they would otherwise not have is not necessarily a Socialist State. It may be a blend of socialism and capitalism.

I think it is. In Europe just a couple of hundred years ago, when there was a good harvest, it was important to keep the food of peasants low and on a stable level, so that they didn't breed uncontrollably. Or it would lead to mass starvation 10-20 years down the line. Quite a few wars may have been started for this reason. Getting rid of excess population was a constant European struggle. Margins were very small. Caring for the poor was more seen as a spiritual activity. It was good for the well off person who did the caring. It was good for their soul. But it was a futile practice. All they did was to prolong someone's suffering a couple of days. Government policies made in order to help the poor and vulnerable would have been national suicide. They would not have been seen it as good governance. Rather the opposite. And it wouldn't have been good governance. Being desperately poor, near starvation, has been the norm for all of humanity since we became farmers up until the agricultural revolution of the 18th century. Malthusianism wasn't sprung from pure evil. It was a practical reality.

It wasn't until the 20th century we had enough food surplus that we could afford it at all. It wasn't that long ago (within my lifetime) that conservatives still held the opinion that we should just let poor people starve to death and die. If Conservatives today would travel back in time and meet Karl Marx and share their views, I think Karl Marx would have called them radical utopian dreamers. Not even Karl Marx thought that the world we have today was possible. By his standards today's conservatives would be seen as communists.

It's easy to forget just how much the world has changed and what world defined the political terms we use today. All our words for today's politics, (except socialism) were defined in the French revolution. They have been frozen it time. All of them are a bad fit for today's world. But we keep using them for traditional reasons anyway.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Socialism is defined as collective ownership of the means of production. In practice that means government ownership of said means.

It is not defined as taking from Peter to give to Paul.

People who make that mistake also often think that Capitalism is the government giving help to businesses. That's also wrong.

 

[ZiprHead]

Socialism is defined as collective ownership of the means of production. In practice that means government ownership of said means.

It is not defined as taking from Peter to give to Paul.

People who make that mistake also often think that Capitalism is the government giving help to businesses. That's also wrong.

Oh, jesus... We've already been over this.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Socialism is defined as collective ownership of the means of production. In practice that means government ownership of said means.

It is not defined as taking from Peter to give to Paul.

People who make that mistake also often think that Capitalism is the government giving help to businesses. That's also wrong.

Oh, jesus...

No, but an understandable mistake.

We've already been over this.

It is still true.

 

[Jarhyn]

Socialism is defined as collective ownership of the means of production. In practice that means government ownership of said means.

It is not defined as taking from Peter to give to Paul.

People who make that mistake also often think that Capitalism is the government giving help to businesses. That's also wrong.

Oh, jesus... We've already been over this.

When has he ever let that stop him?

 

[Derec]

When has he ever let that stop him?

I mean, given that you people keep persisting in your errors with the vigor of a Young Earth Creationist, he kind of has to.

Danish PM in US: Denmark is not socialist

 

[DBT]

It's a blend of social policies and capitalism. The old hard and fast definitions are pretty much obsolete. It's not a case of a nation being either one or the other.

 

[DrZoidberg]

When has he ever let that stop him?

I mean, given that you people keep persisting in your errors with the vigor of a Young Earth Creationist, he kind of has to.

Danish PM in US: Denmark is not socialist

If Bernie Sanders wants to create a socialist system like Denmark, then why is Bernie seen as socialist?

I think Denmark is socialist. It's not just a political system. It's culture. It permeates everything here.

Nobody needs to work. If you don't feel like working, you can live off welfare indefinitely. If your boss isn't nice to you and treats you with respect you have nothing to fear. Any and all university schools and subjects are free of charge. All you need to study is the required grades. It's 100% meritocratic. Parents have zero power over you. If you don't want to do what your parents want you to do, there's nothing they can do about it. You accidentally get your girlfriend knocked up? Fear not, the government covers it and makes sure you can keep your job.

What makes a country socialist is the extremely high degree of personal freedom. What sociologists call a "lack of structural oppression". The lack of fear for ones future that Scandinavians have is the main reason why this is the place religions come to die.

While being wealthy awards high status. It's less so in Scandinavia than anywhere else I've ever been. Perhaps Iranian culture as well. People of high status make an effort in humbling themselves to, what a foreigner might think, is an absurd degree.

Add to that, that Scandinavia is famously one of the best places on Earth from which to start companies. There's very little red tape. Just as the government helps it's citizens in life, it also helps companies.

I live in Denmark. I'd say it's the best country to live and work in, in the entire world. I used to live in Sweden. My picks for cities I wanted to live in were Berlin, Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Copenhagen won out. Yes, the taxes are high. But they're not wasted. We who live here get it back. It works. It works very well.

Because of the USSR socialism has become a dirty word. But denying that Denmark is socialist is absurd IMHO.

 

[fromderinside]

My take is that socialism is barn raising and sharing community demands. My take on America's take on socialism is that we tend to think it's 'from each according to each according' which is a very untrusting formulation that Russians rove in to the ground with corruption. Must is very different from free to.

 

[Harry Bosch]

When has he ever let that stop him?

I mean, given that you people keep persisting in your errors with the vigor of a Young Earth Creationist, he kind of has to.

Danish PM in US: Denmark is not socialist

If Bernie Sanders wants to create a socialist system like Denmark, then why is Bernie seen as socialist?

I think Denmark is socialist. It's not just a political system. It's culture. It permeates everything here.

Nobody needs to work. If you don't feel like working, you can live off welfare indefinitely. If your boss isn't nice to you and treats you with respect you have nothing to fear. Any and all university schools and subjects are free of charge. All you need to study is the required grades. It's 100% meritocratic. Parents have zero power over you. If you don't want to do what your parents want you to do, there's nothing they can do about it. You accidentally get your girlfriend knocked up? Fear not, the government covers it and makes sure you can keep your job.

What makes a country socialist is the extremely high degree of personal freedom. What sociologists call a "lack of structural oppression". The lack of fear for ones future that Scandinavians have is the main reason why this is the place religions come to die.

While being wealthy awards high status. It's less so in Scandinavia than anywhere else I've ever been. Perhaps Iranian culture as well. People of high status make an effort in humbling themselves to, what a foreigner might think, is an absurd degree.

Add to that, that Scandinavia is famously one of the best places on Earth from which to start companies. There's very little red tape. Just as the government helps it's citizens in life, it also helps companies.

I live in Denmark. I'd say it's the best country to live and work in, in the entire world. I used to live in Sweden. My picks for cities I wanted to live in were Berlin, Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Copenhagen won out. Yes, the taxes are high. But they're not wasted. We who live here get it back. It works. It works very well.

Because of the USSR socialism has become a dirty word. But denying that Denmark is socialist is absurd IMHO.

In America, socialism has a very bad word. I think that it's more that people like to blame all their problems on government. Right wingers have picked up on this. They really play it up. They often run on the platform that elect me, I'll cut government and relieve the BS that you are putting you through. Don't elect those democrats, they are all heathen socialists who want to take away your assets. It's a very effective political strategy.

 

[ZiprHead]