Nice things in Socialism.

All sarcasm aside, isn't it working really well for Democratic Socialist countries in the Nordic region? I don't have specific countries in mind; and they're small countries I know, but that's what I've heard. They're happier, more fulfilled, and healthier than American citizens.

 

Don't kid yourself: they have plenty of capitalism.

 

I'm not sure that there really are any purely socialist countries. There are quite a few where your taxes are used to benefit you, and that's it as far as I can tell. I don't know if I'd call that socialism, per se.

 

I'm not kidding, but I do think they have capitalism as swell as socialism.

 

Yea. I don't think it's called that in these special cases. It's a version of it, but not the original article.

 

Dingdingding

Mixed economies for the win

 

Contradictions rarely endure.

 

What's the contradiction? Doing everything selfishly vs. helping others?

Even in capitalism, we don't all just act out of greed and selfishness. I don't see where the contradiction is in using tax dollars to fund social programs.

 

Nope, we don't. But to the extent tax dollars fund social programs, government is initiating the use of force. In a free society- such as America was at one time- that would not happen. I would go so far as to say, taxation is theft. BTW, my hub and I tithe (even with the tax burden).

 

We're forced into a situation either way, though. It's just a different set of laws we have to abide by.

 

This seems like a meaningless phrase you're just saying to have something to say, it doesnt really mean anything or prove anything about mixed economies

 

Don't know what you are referring to .... am logging off for tonight though.

 

You might try ascertaining what a person means before you conclude something like that. As it is, you've pretty much foreclosed discussion between us.

 

Oh. All I'm saying is that the government enforces its laws either way. Right now we're all forced to live in a society that isn't open and honest and constructive. I'd rather be forced to live in a society where we help each other, especially the least fortunate. By force, yes, but by force anyway.

 

Oh I know what you meant

If you want to provide specific examples of why a mixed economy (of which every developed nation is one, including the US) is less likely to endure than a purely capitalistic country, then be my guest. But if you cant provide specifics then it's a meaningless phrase

 

All countries with strong culture of corruption and/or state terrorism, and led by men, who wouldn't play by the rules, and, excluding China, have often horribly mismanaged their countries economies, ensuring that there's nothing to share in the 1st place because they don't produce anything worth a shit. Venezuela is perhaps the saddest example of this. They bet everything on oil, and now that the prices have crashed, they've got nothing. Literally. And the North-Korean leaders just straight up concentrate on stealing from their people, instead of sharing with them. That's about as far away from socialism as you can get. Of course the system would fail in such conditions.

Here in the Nordic countries people are honest (at least more than average), and actually follow what was agreed upon. And the agreement is that when we let companies operate here, they must follow laws and agreements, and pay taxes to the community pool, so that state welfare programs can then be used to take care of EVERYBODY, and not just the system's pets. And it works. People have no reason to go to the barricades and start uprisings, because for the most part, everyone feels they're being taken care of. There hasn't been civil unrest here since the WWII ended, and it's all because we socialize some of the big companies profits and share them as "free money to lazy bums". Peace comes trough better quality of living. That's why our companies are obligated to pay those "evil commie taxes". Because in the end, everybody wins. It works, just as long as the leaders aren't corrupt.

 

Socialism is just a word, that people debate so often that Libertarians constantly accuse one another of being commies. When the people and their governments actually share their words and play nice, they call it socialism even if everybody wants to share their words and play nice.

 

Ugh, socialism and capitalism, these are terms for the organization of production and consumption in a society

Totally seperate thing to your feelings on the subject


Socialism - decisions made by the the whole society

Capitalism - decisions made by a minority for, as the name suggests building capital, which doesnt always mean profit

Socialism in its purest form is impossible. Because it requires every member of a society to be involved equally in every decision

With a weakened definition of socialism, a minority make decisions on behalf of the majority, which then is exactly the same as capitalism and it is just your interpretation what is profit, what is not that determines the difference between it being capitalism or socialism

Universal healthcare is a great example, its never socialist as the majority never decides on any one thing and its always for profit as everyone pays through the tax system and at least one person makes a profit. It is really just your interpretation of profits being excessive that determines if you think it is socialism or capitalism

The short version: you are all just arguing about vague concepts every single person is going to have a different interpretation on

 

Socialism causes people to slack.
Capitalism causes people to work.

So until we have the technology to generate food and clean water out of thin air and for robots to do all of our labour needs for us to slack, we have to suffer the negative aspects capitalism that is greed.