If Socialism Is Such A Looney Concept...

[D.C.]

Ah. But there has been, historically, a very strong culture of independence and self-reliance in both countries (and the rest of Scandinavia), as well as a strong culture of communal responsibility. As a result, the freely available public services, such as health care, were not unreasonably used by the population, and so did not suffer from the escalating cost problems in the NHS.

Also there is a very strong work ethic in both countries.

These cultural dimensions mitigate against the worst problems with socialism.

Unfortunately, recent immigrant populations in Sweden (largely of asylum seekers) seem to (in general) not have taken on the same cultural values, and freely exploit the system, which has lead to a great deal of social and racial tension in the country. The cost of the welfare state in Sweden is swelling unsustainably as a result.

Sad, but true. Socialism can work well, but, it seems, only in culturals and racially homogenous countries.

daily mail ******.

How can you have very strong individualism and very strong communism at the same time? Bit like being a strict jewish muslim.

And if the scandinavians have such a strong work ethic how come they work far fewer hours a week and have much, much longer holidays compared to us brits?!

Just another blame the immigrant ******** post.

[Lone_Twin]

Socialism isnt loony, just very unpleasent.

The Nazis weren't a bit ditsy FFS and neither was Stalin some doddery old gran who confused a post box for her grandson.

What people today perceive as "Socialism" provides a convenient sugar coating for organised malevolance; theft, coercion, violence etc.... for the benefit of those on the "inside" of the state or those granted privaledges for their obedience to it.

[huw]

Ah. But there has been, historically, a very strong culture of independence and self-reliance in both countries (and the rest of Scandinavia), as well as a strong culture of communal responsibility. As a result, the freely available public services, such as health care, were not unreasonably used by the population, and so did not suffer from the escalating cost problems in the NHS.

Also...

Fees

All Swedish long term residents, regardless of nationality, are entitled to use the Swedish health services, at a low fee. There are no fees for children under the age of 16 and those from vulnerable groups pay a minimum amount from their benefits. Sweden’s county councils determine the prices for out-patient care in their region; fees for visiting a GP costs around 80 SEK to 130 SEK. Charges exist for prescription medicine.

[blankster]

Socialism is a good concept in theory, but it requires everyone to 'play ball' for it to work. But with any political system, I think you can divide the population into 3 types - 1) people who work with the system, 2) people who play the system and 3) those who oppose the sytem. Recent events have shown that capitalism has had its fair share of type 2) players, perhaps they should be called 'number twos' !!!

What people today perceive as "Socialism" provides a convenient sugar coating for organised malevolance; theft, coercion, violence etc.... for the benefit of those on the "inside" of the state or those granted privaledges for their obedience to it.

That's not what 'people' in general perceive, it's what those of a fascistic tendency perceive! Edited July 24, 2009 by blankster

[montesquieu]

Here is a quote from Winston Churchill, which pretty much sums up my feeling about socialism:

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.â€

Churchill was a tosser and a drunkard, who as Home Secretary sent troops out with cudgels to crack the heads of miners striking against a wage cut, backed up by troops with guns, Chinese communist party style.

He became premier, unelected, in wartime, on the basis of having been right about Hitler and consistently opposed to the ruling elite who got it wrong (he kept his Krupps & Siemens shares though and did rather well out of them), but when the British people had a say at the 1945 election, they got rid of him at first opportunity.

As a wartime leader he was successful (not least because of Roosevelt's support - we'd have lost otherwise) but let's not pretend everything he said or wrote is sensible.

Edited July 24, 2009 by montesquieu

[domo]

what you describe is essentially marxism.

marxism normally engenders images of communism and a big state however this culdnt be further from the truth. the basis of it is just the removal of class lines and a balance of power between social classes.

its got nothing to do with hindering freedom, or the ability to do what you want. in fact it involves people empowering themselves (a capitalist concept) but not playing by the rules of the current ruling class (which is disproportionately weighted to the rich)

capitalism isnt the evolutionary stage after socialism.

in fact socialism was always supposed to be the next evolutionary stage of capitalism. i.e democracy at a higher level.

Well that the propaganda, reality doesn't quiet play ball.

[blankster]

Socialism is just a word. Leaders used it to gain popularity. That's why Hitler called his right-wing organisation the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) or Nazi Party, to attract people away from the growing Communist movement in Germany in the 1920s.

Socialist means what you want it to mean.

Edited July 24, 2009 by blankster

[enrieb]

There is nothing wrong with people forming voluntary socialist collectives as a means of providing for themselves, but any attempt at trying to run a centralized state socialist economy will fail because the economy needs price signals.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Here is a quote from Winston Churchill, which pretty much sums up my feeling about socialism:

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.â€

And yet living standards in what are generally considered very free market in nature are lower than those more Socialist countries. As for Churchill as a moral philosopher he was 3rd rate at best; he was much better at murdering Kurds.

[mfp123]

Socialism isnt loony, just very unpleasent.

The Nazis weren't a bit ditsy FFS and neither was Stalin some doddery old gran who confused a post box for her grandson.

What people today perceive as "Socialism" provides a convenient sugar coating for organised malevolance; theft, coercion, violence etc.... for the benefit of those on the "inside" of the state or those granted privaledges for their obedience to it.

what you are describing is a dictatorship. in truth the distorted idea of "socialism" we have today is actually state capitalism. socialism does not advocate the existence of a large state. socialism is simply a change in the system of ownership.

if fact marxism for example describes socialism as evolving to a situation whereby the state will cease to exist.

Edited July 24, 2009 by mfp123

[Injin]

And yet living standards in what are generally considered very free market in nature are lower than those more Socialist countries. As for Churchill as a moral philosopher he was 3rd rate at best; he was much better at murdering Kurds.

I think you need to define your terms.

What's a free market?

What's socialism?

What's the difference?

[Pindar]

Certainly all the countries that have ever had 'socialist' in their title had far superior records on human rights.

What, you mean like China?

[Lone_Twin]

That's not what 'people' in general perceive, it's what those of a fascistic tendency perceive!

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. I am saying that people don't look beyond the petty favours tossed their way by the state on order to justify it's existance.

Or are you saying the state is a belevolant construct and those that refuse to cede freedoms to it are facists?

[Lone_Twin]

what you are describing is a dictatorship. in truth the distorted idea of "socialism" we have today is actually state capitalism. socialism does not advocate the existence of a large state. socialism is simply a change in the system of ownership.

if fact marxism for example describes socialism as evolving to situation whereby the state will cease to exist.

Well no a dictatorship usually is defined by ultimate authority residing in the hands of an individual.

In order for the most fluffy lovely modern "socialist" state to exist it must logicaly employ the tools of theft and violence or how else could it sustain itself? Certainly not by voluntary subscription to services or else it would just be a business and we would have no use for the term state.

Until someone can reconcile the fact that socialism tries to achieve good outcomes by doing bad things I can see no other logical judgement other than that it is wrong.

(i'm afraid I shall have to stick with the common understnading of the word socialism rather than a non state marxist interpretation)

[blankster]

Or are you saying the state is a belevolant construct and those that refuse to cede freedoms to it are facists?

The state should be a benevolent construct. I believe that's what it is, largely, but it's flawed.

Without the state we'd live in anarchy. Socialism has been made a dirty word by leaders who either hijacked the word and applied it to a system that was not socialist e.g. Hitler's Nazi Party or Ceaucescu's Romania which was basically a giant feudal state - or who did attempt to be socialist but rapidly failed and became a despot instead - e.g. Mugabe.

Edited July 24, 2009 by blankster

[mightytharg]

I think you need to define your terms.

What's a free market?

What's socialism?

What's the difference?

A freemarket is badly named, because the stuff there isn't free. It's actually a market where the people are free.

Socialism is the system they have in Cuba, and Europe and now the U.S. Where the government enslaves the people and steals most of their money.

The main difference is the free one is kind of cool and socialism sucks.

Am I close?

In answer to the original question, I think the living standards are high in the socialist countries because they are living on borrowed money.

[Charlie The Tramp Returns]

all socialism is theft.

Really, I was personally robbed by Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, and John Major, only Super Mac dear old Harold left me alone, and next came Gordon Brown who dipped my back pocket.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Charlie The Tramp Returns

[Lone_Twin]

What, you mean like China?

Who's irony modem is on the blink mine or yours?

[Lone_Twin]

The state should be a benevolent construct. I believe that's what it is, largely, but it's flawed.

Without the state we'd live in anarchy.

Benevolance requires intent:

What does the state "want"?

Why does it "want" it?

[mfp123]

Well no a dictatorship usually is defined by ultimate authority residing in the hands of an individual.

In order for the most fluffy lovely modern "socialist" state to exist it must logicaly employ the tools of theft and violence or how else could it sustain itself? Certainly not by voluntary subscription to services or else it would just be a business and we would have no use for the term state.

Until someone can reconcile the fact that socialism tries to achieve good outcomes by doing bad things I can see no other logical judgement other than that it is wrong.

(i'm afraid I shall have to stick with the common understnading of the word socialism rather than a non state marxist interpretation)

no because when you say theft or violence you are talking about taking resources from one individual to give to another. i.e state capitalism.

socialism and eventually the abolition of the state leads towards the idea of communism which in fact is not a centralised body controlling the distribution of everything for everyone but decentralised power (no government) spread evenly between everyone.

Edited July 24, 2009 by mfp123

[Lone_Twin]

no because when you say theft or violence you are talking about taking resources from one individual to give to another. i.e state capitalism.

socialism and eventually the abolition of the state leads towards the idea of communism which in fact is not a centralised body controlling the distribution of everything for everyone but decentralised power (no government) spread evenly between everyone.

That is anachism surely?

[Authoritarian]

Its important at this point to remind ourselves of the economics of socialism. Enter Duncan Weldon, a Labour supporter, and a professional economist writing about the importance of high government spending:

The 'Politics of Envy' is a phrase much used by the right. Whenever the left suggest raising taxes on top earners this is what we hear. Any attempt at a rational debate on the issues, any attempt to make an argument based on the principle of people 'paying their fair share' or any claim that equality is a social good is met with this simple rebuke.

So it is a little strange to see the right in Britain as a whole engaging in what can only be described as the 'Politics of Envy'. How else can we categorise the 'debate' over public sector pay and pensions?

As I understand it, the argument runs as follows: there is one group of workers who (it is claimed) earn more than the others and have more secure pensions. Therefore this group should have their pay and pensions cut.

Sometimes the argument is phrased in terms of 'fairness' - something the left has never been allowed to do. To talk of taxing someone more because they earn more is to be 'envious', but to talk of cutting someones wages if they earn more is not?

At other times it is couched in terms of 'economic necessity', but when the left argues that the higher taxes are needed or that equality is an economic as well as a social good, these arguments are not accepted. What do the Tories et al actually think they will achieve by cutting public sector wages- other than less spending, a smaller tax take and a slower recovery? What will those things do to the public finances?

My favourite line the right have used in recent weeks is to claim that public sector workers only have better pay and pensions as they are unionised. Good. Maybe if private sector workers unionised to the same extent they could enjoy similar benefits. Is the right's position seriously that it wants 'fairness' by leveling down? That it wants to pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator in the name of justice? Seriously? Because I seem to remember they are usually against that sort of thing.

There is a strong economic case against cutting public spending at this point in the economic cycle. We are not out of the economic woods yet and any cuts now, as demand drained from the economy, could push us back down into a 'double dip' recession.

But let's leave aside the straight factual case for the moment (even though I believe it can be won on its merits). I believe the time has come to throw the right's argument straight back at them. They are engaging in the Politics of Envy.

http://www.labourlist.org/the_politics_of_...ldon,2009-07-13

Edited July 24, 2009 by chefdave

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Its important at this point to remind ourselves of the economics of socialism. Enter Duncan Weldon, a Labour supporter, and a professional economist writing about the importance of high government spending:

http://www.labourlist.org/the_politics_of_...ldon,2009-07-13

He misses the fact that their pensions are going to bankrupt the country.

[mfp123]

That is anachism surely?

the problem, with so called "communist" countries we have today is that they skipped out the stages of capitalism and socialism, and went straight to communism, thinking its the best system, which to a certain extent, it is the end goal.

however without the basic system of society in place, which is achieved by capitalism, then socialism, it is necessary for the government to step in in order to "achieve" the goal of communism.

as a result, today, communism doesnt work, because we are not at that stage of development and are simply not ready for it.

Edited July 24, 2009 by mfp123

[Authoritarian]

He misses the fact that their pensions are going to bankrupt the country.

Yeah, and this guy has made money from T.V appearances because of his 'expertise'. Its unbelievable.