Socialism

[HisArpy]

Those countries listed are NOT socialist utopias. They are/were dictatorships that claimed to be socialist while the leaders were robbing the country.

Socialism and the other differently named forms of government ALL have the same roots from the same poisonous bush. The outcome has NEVER been different no matter where socialism is tried than what we are seeing now in Venezuela/Cuba and what we've seen in the past in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Those countries listed are NOT socialist utopias. They are/were dictatorships that claimed to be socialist while the leaders were robbing the country.

They are socialist countries, definitively so.

The government and thus it's leadership owned(s) the means and controlled the markets....there is no private property.

That's what socialism is, government and collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services "benefiting the masses" isn't part of the equation.....it's just the lie the left sells to get people to vote/revolt themselves out of their means and market access.

 

[Sean]

Socialism and the other differently named forms of government ALL have the same roots from the same poisonous bush. The outcome has NEVER been different no matter where socialism is tried than what we are seeing now in Venezuela/Cuba and what we've seen in the past in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.

So Scandinavia and pretty much the whole of Western Europe are despotic dictatorships, are they?

 

[butters]

honestly, say 'socialism' and the same suspects go gaga - and yet they just lurve putin and trump's wanting to be just like him when he grows up

 

[oggbashan]

Socialism and the other differently named forms of government ALL have the same roots from the same poisonous bush. The outcome has NEVER been different no matter where socialism is tried than what we are seeing now in Venezuela/Cuba and what we've seen in the past in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.

That is a lie which ignores experience in Europe.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So Scandinavia and pretty much the whole of Western Europe are despotic dictatorships, are they?

Last I checked Scandinavia was highly capitalistic and so was most of Western Europe were too.

 

[BotanyBoy]

honestly, say 'socialism' and the same suspects go gaga - and yet they just lurve putin and trump's wanting to be just like him when he grows up

Oh look a lefty making up lies.....shocking

 

[oggbashan]

Tha fuck does that have to do with the USA?

The words 'socialism' and 'socialist' are terms of abuse in the USA, consistently used by right wingers to demonise their opponents.

They do not have the same derogatory meaning in the UK and Europe.

It is surprising, given the constant attacks on socialism, that so many in the USA support it.

But charitable donations in the USA suggest that helping someone who is struggling is permissible and even good.

 

[oggbashan]

Last I checked Scandinavia was highly capitalistic and so was most of Western Europe were too.

Yes, combined with socialism.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That is a lie which ignores experience in Europe.

LOL the experience in Europe absolutely supports it.

Last I checked most European nations adopted a market economy over a centrally planned one.

Also I can't think of one European nation where they have a centrally planned economy and means of production/property is collectively owned through the state.

 

[dolf]

I've never considered Denmark or The Netherlands to be terrifying dystopias. I don't think that it would work well with the American temperament though...

 

[Sean]

honestly, say 'socialism' and the same suspects go gaga - and yet they just lurve putin and trump's wanting to be just like him when he grows up

Because they've swallowed the propaganda they've been force fed since 1946. The election of the Attlee government in the UK in 1945 absolutely terrified big capital and they formulated a propaganda campaign that has been running ever since.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes, combined with socialism.

How so?

Either the government owns the means of production or individuals do.

Can't have it both ways.

Taxing to provide civil services/public goods is NOT socialism.

Government ownership/control over the means of production and the markets that production is exchanged on, is.

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

 

[BotanyBoy]

I've never considered Denmark or The Netherlands to be terrifying dystopias. I don't think that it would work well with the American temperament though...

Neither one is socialist.

 

[oggbashan]

Neither one is socialist.

They are by USA conservatives' definitions.

 

[HisArpy]

That is a lie which ignores experience in Europe.

Most European countries, which are pointed to as models of socialism, AREN'T.

They tried it, realized where it would eventually lead and changed their policies to one which embraces capitalism and supports a social program framework.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...dic-countries-are-not-socialist/#47399eee74ad

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/

https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-myth-of-nordic-socialism-51554296401

Nordic countries are not socialist, they are small, open economies, and they cherish free trade.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/402682-nordic-nations-are-not-socialist-theyre-free-trade-lovers

And despite what many progressives may think, some of the most progressive aspects of the Nordic model have been dismantled since the early 1990s:

https://www.quora.com/How-socialist-are-Scandinavian-countries

Thus, the lie is not mine.

 

[oggbashan]

Most European countries, which are pointed to as models of socialism, AREN'T.

They tried it, realized where it would eventually lead and changed their policies to one which embraces capitalism and supports a social program framework.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...dic-countries-are-not-socialist/#47399eee74ad

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/

https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-myth-of-nordic-socialism-51554296401






Thus, the lie is not mine.

Repeat Post #90

 

[HisArpy]

Repeat Post #90

What you postulate as true, isn't proof of truth. The facts do not support your position.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They are by USA conservatives' definitions.

Just the ignorant ones...including the ignorant USA's "progressives" who are apparently even more ignorant of the topic than the conservatives judging by the media and "progressive" GB members who think socialism = unicorn farts and gumdrops for ALL!!

But just in case you want to stop operating under the "definitions" of ignorant American's.....

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

 

[oggbashan]

Just the ignorant ones...including the ignorant USA's "progressives" who are apparently even more ignorant of the topic than the conservatives judging by the media and "progressive" GB members who think socialism = unicorn farts and gumdrops for ALL!!

But just in case you want to stop operating under the "definitions" of ignorant American's.....


https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Those definitions are NOT used in US discussions about universal health care or other suggestions for welfare.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Those definitions are NOT used in US discussions about universal health care or other suggestions for welfare.

They are when the suggestion is nationalizing HC or redistributing wealth simply for the sake of sticking it to the rich....like some of our Democratic Socialist want to do. They are when the left wants to push bureaucratic control over the means/markets....Because those policy positions are socialistic.

They are in most academic settings.

Question is why are all the people who are such big fans of socialism and their beloved god state in control of all the things, so intent on conflating it with the far less murderous social democracy/liberalism when called on their support of the vile and blood soaked ideology they allegedly support???

 

[HisArpy]

Question is why are all the people who are such big fans of socialism and their beloved god state in control of all the things, so intent on conflating it with the far less murderous social democracy/liberalism when called on their support of the vile and blood soaked ideology they allegedly support???

I think the bigger question is why are those who support all of those progressive socialistic ideals so afraid to actually call them what they are; instead of trying to apply a different definition to what is already well defined.

Could they be trying to hoodwink the gullible?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I think the bigger question is why are those who support all of those progressive socialistic ideals so afraid to actually call them what they are; instead of trying to apply a different definition to what is already well defined.

Could they be trying to hoodwink the gullible?

Indeed.

Better yet if it's so fucking awesome and amazing why don't states like California/NY put their money where their mouths are??

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/55992102.jpg

They have more than enough people/economy and support the kinds of policy they push nationally at the state level. No ID needed welfare for the world state paid for by a 90% tax on the rich.

Why don't they do it??

 

[RobDownSouth]

Last I checked Scandinavia was highly capitalistic and so was most of Western Europe were too.

Yeah, about that "highly capitalistic" Scandanavia....

One of the conservative writer over at Forbes tried to make that claim too.

It is certainly true that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark are notable economic successes. What is false is that these countries are particularly socialist.
Perhaps a better name for what the Nordic countries practice would be compassionate capitalism.

Kinda provocative, no?

Buried deep in the the essay is teh money quote:

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). (Rob's note: this is what BotanyBastard squeals about on a near-daily basis)

The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things. Yes, they offer government-paid healthcare, in some cases tuition-free university educations, and rather generous social safety nets, all financed with high taxes. However, it is possible to do these things without interfering in the private sector more than required.

Soooo....let's review. A country can offer:

• government-paid healthcare
• tuition-free university educations
• generous social safety nets

and finance them with higher taxes and still be considered compassionate capitalist successes? and still not be "particularly socialist"?

Who knew?

 

[HisArpy]

Soooo....let's review. A country can offer:

• government-paid healthcare
• tuition-free university educations
• generous social safety nets

and finance them with higher taxes and still be considered compassionate capitalist successes? and still not be "particularly socialist"?

Who knew?

Lol, did you forget about the capitalist economy part?