NationStates Jolt Archive

We always talk about how Europe is so socialist. That may no longer be true with the large addition to the EU, but Western Europe is still socialist. The question is which one.

After lots of thought, I'd say France. The government controls many industries, fixes lots of prices, and has a safety net typical of most nations. I was also considering the UK, but they have dismantled theirs somewhat.
I realize that the Scandanavian countries seem more socialist, but I think they are not. With the exception of Sweden, they are enjoying resource wealth, and have little use for economic activity other than consuming. For Denmark and Norway, it is oil, and for Iceland, it is their extremely huge fisheries.

Probably Sweden. Massive welfare state, state alcohol sales monopoly, heavy regulation, etc.

Mind you, Ireland often feels pretty socialist. The government is looking at bringing in a tax on fatty foods in an attempt to curb the trend of child obesity.

Probably Sweden. Massive welfare state, state alcohol sales monopoly, heavy regulation, etc.
I knew lots of people would say the Nordic countries. My friend's girlfriend is actually a Swedish exchange student. She gets a rough equivilant of $200/month just for being a kid.

Mind you, Ireland often feels pretty socialist. The government is looking at bringing in a tax on fatty foods in an attempt to curb the trend of child obesity.
I've heard that. But there was only so much room at this poll.

I don't live in any of them, but from what I hear, I'd have to say Sweden.

I knew lots of people would say the Nordic countries. My friend's girlfriend is actually a Swedish exchange student. She gets a rough equivilant of $200/month just for being a kid.
That's because it's true. In Scandinavian countries the governments control many industries and fixes lots of prices too.

That's because it's true. In Scandinavian countries the governments control many industries and fixes lots of prices too.
Well, as I said, the Scandanavian countries are enjoying resource wealth. There's lots of socialism around, but part of it is enjoying a sudden bonanza of wealth. That's what happened in Middle Eastern oil states: they have large social safety nets, but no one calls them socialist.

France is more republican than socialist.

I chose France, but I must admit I don't know too much about the Scandinavian governments.

France is more republican than socialist.
Republican in what way? That they are a fierce proponet of a republic?

Well, this is odd. The title almost makes sense, but then most of the content of the thread doesn't seem to apply. The idea that some European economies have socialistic elements is something real and worth discussing, but the idea that they are actually socialist is not. If Western Europe was actually socialist, the public would own the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and with only a few minority exceptions they do not.

I just wanted it to be understood that there are no socialist economies in Europe, but don't mean to derail the debate about which European economies include the most socialistic elements. As to that, I'm afraid I don't know. Seems like the sort of thing that should be taught in school as basic general knowledge. Hm.

Well, as I said, the Scandanavian countries are enjoying resource wealth. There's lots of socialism around, but part of it is enjoying a sudden bonanza of wealth. That's what happened in Middle Eastern oil states: they have large social safety nets, but no one calls them socialist.
Having resources doesn't mean that they're not socialist. In Norway, for example, Statoil (literally "state oil") controls the oil industry.

Well, this is odd. The title almost makes sense, but then most of the content of the thread doesn't seem to apply. The idea that some European economies have socialistic elements is something real and worth discussing, but the idea that they are actually socialist is not. If Western Europe was actually socialist, the public would own the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and with only a few minority exceptions they do not.

I just wanted it to be understood that there are no socialist economies in Europe, but don't mean to derail the debate about which European economies include the most socialistic elements. As to that, I'm afraid I don't know. Seems like the sort of thing that should be taught in school as basic general knowledge. Hm.
Pure socialism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" Marx described, that exists only in Cuba and Laos. Thus, pure socialism isn't popular anywhere, but as you said, huge socialist elements exist in Europe. Many people in European countries probably see their governments as more socialist than not. Indeed, countries such as France have more than 52% of their GDP going to taxation, and thus to the public sector.

Having resources doesn't mean that they're not socialist. In Norway, for example, Statoil (literally "state oil") controls the oil industry.
Of course it doesn't , but sometimes, the use of resource wealth can't be entirely socialist. In the oil states, wealth may be used in a way that seems "socialist", but in reality, it is used to their political advantage. I'm not osaying that the Scandavian leaders are also dictators, but the politicians certainly love using that money to buy votes. That isn't exactly the point of socialism, although I reiterate that the Nordic countries still have plenty of it.

Of course it doesn't , but sometimes, the use of resource wealth can't be entirely socialist. In the oil states, wealth may be used in a way that seems "socialist", but in reality, it is used to their political advantage. I'm not osaying that the Scandavian leaders are also dictators, but the politicians certainly love using that money to buy votes. That isn't exactly the point of socialism, although I reiterate that the Nordic countries still have plenty of it.
Just because a nation is Socialist dosen't mean that it is run by a individual dictator, it all depends on how one interperts "dictatorship of the prolitariat" if one takes the approach used by "communists" then you have a gov. set up like in the CCCP or Cuba, it could also be interperted in the manner put forward by Democratic Socialists, were the "dictatorship" means that all power is in the hands of the people.

am i the only one who thinks that americans tend to label france as being significantly more socialist than it is??

My thoughts are that americans are taught to dislike socialism, and they are taught to dislike france, so to make it easier they just put the two together.




(btw, I have never been to europe or america so this a very distant guess that could be completly wrong. If you think so please point it out civily rather than flamage. :fluffle: thanks)

I knew lots of people would say the Nordic countries. My friend's girlfriend is actually a Swedish exchange student. She gets a rough equivilant of $200/month just for being a kid.
Sounds good to me

Erp, Laos and Cuba as dictatorships of the proletariat? I will admit that I've never been to either nation, but I'd be surprised if that were the case. The term just makes me think of the communards, which is in sharp contrast with an actual dictatorship or even a representative democracy, which I mention because somebody said that the Scandinavian nations aren't actually dictatorships... I usually contend that they are, like all other national governments have ever been, if only in the dictatorship of the majority over the minority or of one agenda over all others as unfailingly results from any election.

...I'm feeling... a tangent. Erm. So, socialist economics in Europe, eh? The British public voted for them, in all their infuriating ignorance, and, even more infuriatingly, didn't get them. Damn party politics, democracy's dead when the people can't get what they vote for. Damn it, tangents!

I still don't know. It should be fairly easily worked-out. I don't think it's all that subjective, we just need somebody who knows how much of each European economy is held in the public realm, I suppose.

am i the only one who thinks that americans tend to label france as being significantly more socialist than it is??

My thoughts are that americans are taught to dislike socialism, and they are taught to dislike france, so to make it easier they just put the two together.




(btw, I have never been to europe or america so this a very distant guess that could be completly wrong. If you think so please point it out civily rather than flamage. :fluffle: thanks)
We aren't taught to dislike France that just happens :p Seriously I think it is mainly due to the fact that Fr. isn't willing to bendover and take it from Bush, which we liberals get criticized for as well. The socialism observation is true though, many people just don't want to admit that some rather socialistic policies are the only reason we aren't still in the days of the robber barons.

Just because a nation is Socialist dosen't mean that it is run by a individual dictator, it all depends on how one interperts "dictatorship of the prolitariat" if one takes the approach used by "communists" then you have a gov. set up like in the CCCP or Cuba, it could also be interperted in the manner put forward by Democratic Socialists, were the "dictatorship" means that all power is in the hands of the people.
I never said that socialist nations are dictatorships. It's just that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the stepping stone to communism. That's where the USSR and everyone else got stuck at, and so is Cuba and Laos. Vietnam was, but it's been liberalizing as of late. North Korea claims to be, but "Dear Leader" is not exactly representative of the people.

We aren't taught to dislike France that just happens :p Seriously I think it is mainly due to the fact that Fr. isn't willing to bendover and take it from Bush, which we liberals get criticized for as well. The socialism observation is true though, many people just don't want to admit that some rather socialistic policies are the only reason we aren't still in the days of the robber barons.

a bit of socialism cant be that bad when you look at a capitalist country like america that has a good standard of living generally but approx 50million american people are "food insecure" (U.N. classification, i think i heard on bbc, dont have a link) meaning that those people cant gaurantee(sp?) to have atleast one meal every day due to being "financially challenged"

I find Americans to be, safe for a few wonderful exceptions. The most ignorant people anywhere in the world, when it comes to what socialism is. They all seem to think its like communist dictatorships, and some even equate it with the nazis. Which I blame on propaganda. And the fact that Americans simply aren't the most critical culture. Far moreso then Europe, the government can tell its citizens that group X is bad. And that anyone who disagrees is unpatriotic/hates America/is a pinko commie whatever.

Being intimately familiar with both America and Europe. I can tell you that in Western Europe, the poor are better off then the poor in America. The middle class about they same. (Though they can count on more security.) And yeah, the rich are perhaps better off in the US, but they are hardly miserable in Europe. Not to mention that in Europe the only 'freedom' we don't have that the Americans do is to buy alot of guns.

I'd suggest that all that Europe bashing is envy, if I hadn't already established that its simply the result of a mixture of propaganda and a populace thats either gullible. Swallowing the crap hook line and sinker and considering it to be cake, rather then the shit it is, to boot. Or fearful of the ignorant masses who swallowed the crap calling them unpatriotic/haters of America/pinko commies etc...

a bit of socialism cant be that bad when you look at a capitalist country like america that has a good standard of living generally but approx 50million american people are "food insecure" (U.N. classification, i think i heard on bbc, dont have a link) meaning that those people cant gaurantee(sp?) to have atleast one meal every day due to being "financially challenged"
It can't be that high. Poverty levels are at 12%, and the population is 300 million. That works out to about that level that are below the poverty line, many of whom are not "food insecure".
Besides, look at Hong Kong. Records on poverty aren't kept, as it hardly exists there. Yet it is far more capitalist than even the US.

It can't be that high. Poverty levels are at 12%, and the population is 300 million. That works out to about that level that are below the poverty line, many of whom are not "food insecure".
Besides, look at Hong Kong. Records on poverty aren't kept, as it hardly exists there. Yet it is far more capitalist than even the US.
Are you sure thaey are not kept b/c there is none or that they want to keep it quite? silence should often be met with suspicion ecspecialy given the human rights track record of that part of the world.

Hah. Those who voted for Sweden to be "most socialist" have obviously not been here any time during the last decade.

It's quite funny, actually.

I find Americans to be, safe for a few wonderful exceptions. The most ignorant people anywhere in the world, when it comes to what socialism is. They all seem to think its like communist dictatorships, and some even equate it with the nazis. Which I blame on propaganda. And the fact that Americans simply aren't the most critical culture. Far moreso then Europe, the government can tell its citizens that group X is bad. And that anyone who disagrees is unpatriotic/hates America/is a pinko commie whatever.

Being intimately familiar with both America and Europe. I can tell you that in Western Europe, the poor are better off then the poor in America. The middle class about they same. (Though they can count on more security.) And yeah, the rich are perhaps better off in the US, but they are hardly miserable in Europe. Not to mention that in Europe the only 'freedom' we don't have that the Americans do is to buy alot of guns.

I'd suggest that all that Europe bashing is envy, if I hadn't already established that its simply the result of a mixture of propaganda and a populace thats either gullible. Swallowing the crap hook line and sinker and considering it to be cake, rather then the shit it is, to boot. Or fearful of the ignorant masses who swallowed the crap calling them unpatriotic/haters of America/pinko commies etc...
I'm Europe bashing for a different reason: I love the free markets and their effects. I'm also a bit of a disciple of Ayn Rand, and she'd be much harsher on Europe than I am if she were alive.

Are you sure thaey are not kept b/c there is none or that they want to keep it quite? silence should often be met with suspicion ecspecialy given the human rights track record of that part of the world.
So, the US abuses human rights? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but does it happen here on a systematic basis?

Hah. Those who voted for Sweden to be "most socialist" have obviously not been here any time during the last decade.

It's quite funny, actually.
How so?

So, the US abuses human rights? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but does it happen here on a systematic basis?
I know if you look at some of the acuisations currently being made the yes it does, as for systematicaly violating human rights we have normaly been upen enough to keep it from becoming systematic, but it has happened in the past ecspecially when dealing with other countries who we feel are in our way.

And if you would include multinational corps. that are based here then I would say definantly and extreamly systematicaly.

How so?

'Cause it seems to be based more on conjecture than on real knowledge of what the situation has been like here during the last decade, with privatisation of most government businesses (notable exclusions being the alcohol monopoly and the medical system, but the latter is only limited to hospitals - almost every other medical facility has privately owned counterparts).

I'd wager to say France is more socialist than Sweden is nowadays. But that of course depends of what "socialist" is.

Eh up, Mystic Mindinao. This won't do. I am now inclined to think that I was right in hesitating to accept Cuba and Laos as dictatorships of the proletariat if they were said to be so on the assumption that the USSR and Vietnam were also such.

I suppose we could argue about the history of the term, but Engels said, "Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!" And the Paris Commune was nothing like the USSR or Vietnam: I don't think that Stalin's position was subject to recall at any time and by popular consent.

I know if you look at some of the acuisations currently being made the yes it does, as for systematicaly violating human rights we have normaly been upen enough to keep it from becoming systematic, but it has happened in the past ecspecially when dealing with other countries who we feel are in our way.

And if you would include multinational corps. that are based here then I would say definantly and extreamly systematicaly.
That may be true for suspected terrorists, but not many in the US. I live in the US and oppose my government for its socialism. I've never been beaten by the FBI. The same is true for most people. If US citizens were beaten or otherwise abused, we'd have a militia probllem again that was just like in the 1990s, only bigger.

Eh up, Mystic Mindinao. This won't do. I am now inclined to think that I was right in hesitating to accept Cuba and Laos as dictatorships of the proletariat if they were said to be so on the assumption that the USSR and Vietnam were also such.

I suppose we could argue about the history of the term, but Engels said, "Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!" And the Paris Commune was nothing like the USSR or Vietnam: I don't think that Stalin's position was subject to recall at any time and by popular consent.
No. But nearly all states trying to achieve communism started out this way. They just got stuck there. Of course, I'm working off Lenin's idea that the proletariat need a leader, and that would be the Communist Party.

'Cause it seems to be based more on conjecture than on real knowledge of what the situation has been like here during the last decade, with privatisation of most government businesses (notable exclusions being the alcohol monopoly and the medical system, but the latter is only limited to hospitals - almost every other medical facility has privately owned counterparts).

I'd wager to say France is more socialist than Sweden is nowadays. But that of course depends of what "socialist" is.
I define it as government ownership based on the altruistic inclinations of a government, and nothing else. France fits the bill in my view. They have monopolies in the airline sector, telecommunications, cars, trains, electricity, energy, and most everything else, it seems. I was talking to one businessman from France, actually. He said that while plenty of innovation happens in France, mass production there is impossible, as all factories are either owned by the state, or a few state-regulated monopolies.
In addition, they are heavy on regulating social issues. They are actively trying to assimilate their Muslims into French culture. Elsewhere, assimilation by government woulkd be seen as a waste of government time.
Edit: Absolut Vodka is a Swedish vodka sold in the US. Is that owned by the Swedish government?

Hah. Those who voted for Sweden to be "most socialist" have obviously not been here any time during the last decade.

It's quite funny, actually.
I was there last summer and the previous summer, actually.

definitely no the UK, thats all i know about

the scandinavian countries seem to be the most socialist, and the nicest places to live as well...if you dont mind the government interference.

which i do..

No. But nearly all states trying to achieve communism started out this way. They just got stuck there. Of course, I'm working off Lenin's idea that the proletariat need a leader, and that would be the Communist Party.


Damn Lenin. And Trotsky, for similar reasons. Way to subvert generations of hard-earned progress, mates! No better than Napoleon or Washington in that sense.
The idea that socialism or communism require leadership automatically kills communism, and just causes people to prattle on and on about how, "it's a nice idea, but it'll never work..." even though it quite openly and famously has done.

I gather that most of the justification for their stance (Trotsky et al) comes from the defeat of the communards at the hands of the Second Republic and the Prussians, and from Trotsky's ability to criticise military command inferior to that of which he himself was capable as well as from the 'Soviet' leadership's desire to, well, to remain the leadership. But it is all a falsehood. French socialism wasn't beaten by a lack of leadership, just by a rabble of ill-educated gunslingers with no moral backbone and a lot of military training and hardware.

I'm often discouraged as to the hopes for European socialism in the future because of increasing de-industrialisation in many western nations... but the idea that a revolutionary society needs to be fully industrialised is also born out of the defeat of the communards, who were out-gunned by virtue of having risen in Paris rather than, say, Manchester. Paris could do it again, today, and this time -one would hope- the Republican army wouldn't turn up and shoot tens of thousands of Parisians in the streets.

France could be the most socialistic nation in Europe and could even be socialist. As it happens, it may be the most socialistic, but it isn't actually socialist.

The nation with the worst economy is the most socialist HEHEHE

i mean come on socialism doesn't work

European politics isn't my speciality i study American polly sci, but i would say that Swenden, Denmark and France are probably the most socialist

I know that UK isn't socialist...they sold some of their government property and the labor party is more like the democratics of the US instead of a true socialist party

The nation with the worst economy is the most socialist HEHEHE

i mean come on socialism doesn't work

European politics isn't my speciality i study American polly sci, but i would say that Swenden, Denmark and France are probably the most socialist

I know that UK isn't socialist...they sold some of their government property and the labor party is more like the democratics of the US instead of a true socialist party
I think the UK is close. Tony Blair is what I call an eco-fascist. The tax burden is rather high, there is a health safety net, and many sectors are government controled. The BBC, while not a monopoly, comes to mind, as they are kept alive by public money and ridiculously high fees sanctioned by the government.

I define it as government ownership based on the altruistic inclinations of a government, and nothing else. France fits the bill in my view. They have monopolies in the airline sector, telecommunications, cars, trains, electricity, energy, and most everything else, it seems.

All of those are "deregulated" here, i.e. have private actors in them.

Edit: Absolut Vodka is a Swedish vodka sold in the US. Is that owned by the Swedish government?

If my information is correct, it is made and owned by a group called "Vin & Sprit AB" (= "Wine and Spirits Inc."), the owner of which is owned by the Swedish government. Not surprising, since alcohol production and sales are tightly regulated here.

I was there last summer and the previous summer, actually.

What's so dreadfully socialist here, then?

What's so dreadfully socialist here, then?
The price of a pint. I feel I need to contact a crisis group every time I have one in Sthlm.

All of those are "deregulated" here, i.e. have private actors in them.

So I see. Tell me, is the country drifting right?

If my information is correct, it is made and owned by a group called "Vin & Sprit AB" (= "Wine and Spirits Inc."), the owner of which is owned by the Swedish government. Not surprising, since alcohol production and sales are tightly regulated here.
I see. So the Swedes love to act through subsidiaries. Well, thanks for looking.

So I see. Tell me, is the country drifting right?

Economically, most definitely. Socially, no.

I see. So the Swedes love to act through subsidiaries. Well, thanks for looking.

That's not a valid generalisation. You're welcome, though.

The price of a pint. I feel I need to contact a crisis group every time I have one in Sthlm.

That has very little to do with socialism, and a lot more to do with public health policy.

Oh, and alcohol taxes are about to be slashed, because of harmonisation (and competition) with the EU. Come next summer, the prices will be a lot lower. Come a decade, I doubt the alcohol monopoly will even exist.

Economically, most definitely. Socially, no.
Sounds like my type of country. Of course, a climate is a big problem, and I'd be uncomfortable living on a street where a 16 year old prostitute frequents. But I guess I can overcome that. But please, can you guys find a warmer spot to go? Pretty please?

From what I've heard, I have to say Sweden.

Sounds like my type of country. Of course, a climate is a big problem, and I'd be uncomfortable living on a street where a 16 year old prostitute frequents.

A prostitute? Buying sexual favours is illegal here, while selling them isn't (that way, the "guilt" is put on the johns). That's why you're unlikely to see prostitutes walking the streets here - it's very much on-line nowadays.

But I guess I can overcome that. But please, can you guys find a warmer spot to go? Pretty please?

Spring, summer and autumn here are actually quite temperate. It's just the winter that can be a bitch, but you grow to accept it and even like it sometimes.

Well, this is odd. The title almost makes sense, but then most of the content of the thread doesn't seem to apply. The idea that some European economies have socialistic elements is something real and worth discussing, but the idea that they are actually socialist is not. If Western Europe was actually socialist, the public would own the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and with only a few minority exceptions they do not.

I just wanted it to be understood that there are no socialist economies in Europe, but don't mean to derail the debate about which European economies include the most socialistic elements. As to that, I'm afraid I don't know. Seems like the sort of thing that should be taught in school as basic general knowledge. Hm.
Actually, most of them are Socialist. I just got done reading the Communist Mannifesto for history class. In the final section, Marx goes into great detail to describe the difference between communism and other forms of socialism. What you are portraying as socialist is actually communist. Most European nations are in fact socialist, but not communist.

That may be true for suspected terrorists, but not many in the US. I live in the US and oppose my government for its socialism. I've never been beaten by the FBI. The same is true for most people. If US citizens were beaten or otherwise abused, we'd have a militia probllem again that was just like in the 1990s, only bigger.
Which is why I said its primarily a problem in our dealings with other nations and other nations citizens. For example the Canadian citizen suing the goverment for sending him to Syria where he was tortured.

That has very little to do with socialism, and a lot more to do with public health policy.

Oh, and alcohol taxes are about to be slashed, because of harmonisation (and competition) with the EU. Come next summer, the prices will be a lot lower. Come a decade, I doubt the alcohol monopoly will even exist.
Oh, I know. I was only kidding. I'm in the business of providing alcohol and tobacco to the ferries in the Baltic sea. I can say we are waiting for next summer with mixed emotions.

Spring, summer and autumn here are actually quite temperate. It's just the winter that can be a bitch, but you grow to accept it and even like it sometimes.
You must have icicles in your blood if you like it. I live in upstate NY. Winters can average around -15 degrees celsius (and occaisonally farenheit), and there is at least 100 in. of snow by season's end. It's great for skiing, but it sucks to drive in, and shovel, and to move anywhere outdoors.

Actually, most of them are Socialist. I just got done reading the Communist Mannifesto for history class. In the final section, Marx goes into great detail to describe the difference between communism and other forms of socialism. What you are portraying as socialist is actually communist. Most European nations are in fact socialist, but not communist.

Nah, socialism is the same economic form as communism, it just doesn't require communal living. Marx doesn't own communism, no matter how much easier that idea might make it for the haves to attack have-nots with ideas.

Nah, socialism is the same economic form as communism, it just doesn't require communal living. Marx doesn't own communism, no matter how much easier that idea might make it for the haves to attack have-nots with ideas.
But Marx did contribute greatly to the theory.
And socialism is not the same as communism. Communism, in pure form, is supposed to be a state where no government, law, want, crime, guns, or money need to even exist, as everyone will help provide for everyone else. Socialism is simply the people owning means of production through the government.

But Marx did contribute greatly to the theory.
And socialism is not the same as communism. Communism, in pure form, is supposed to be a state where no government, law, want, crime, guns, or money need to even exist, as everyone will help provide for everyone else. Socialism is simply the people owning means of production through the government.

Yeah, so, basically, the economic aspect is the same, and the social is more radically reformed in communist life. Everyone helping to provide for everyone else is not exactly a radical departure from everyone providing everything. "Communal living" sounds like a throw away and minor consideration when phrased so briefly, but actually deals with all the governmental guff mentioned there.

In context here, it was said that I was describing communism rather than socialism, implying that mildly diluted capitalism is in fact socialism. It seems that, basically, you agree with me in that it is not, so that's the main thing.

So, whomever said Germany was the most socialized should be shamed. That may have been true in the 1980s, but not now. Especially now that they have past the Hartz IV Reform Laws. It will take a while to see, but that should give flexibility to Germany's labor market by cutting some of the safety net. It may even slash the unemployment rate significantly, as it is unacceptably high.

So you start a thread and make a poll including Germany in it, and now diss people who for some reason voted for Germany in that poll... interesting. Be ashamed you Germany voters! Really ashamed! :)

Actually, most of them are Socialist. I just got done reading the Communist Mannifesto for history class. In the final section, Marx goes into great detail to describe the difference between communism and other forms of socialism. What you are portraying as socialist is actually communist. Most European nations are in fact socialist, but not communist.

*applauds*

The most socialist, of all European nations, contrary to the practice of the ruling elite there in other parts of the world, is the Vatican City.
Everyone who lives there has all of their needs met by the state. No unemployment, full medical care, housing, food, everything. All provided by their head of state and ruling organisation. A shame they can't apply the principle elsewhere and actualy do some good works for once.

I knew lots of people would say the Nordic countries. My friend's girlfriend is actually a Swedish exchange student. She gets a rough equivilant of $200/month just for being a kid.

Here in England certain students can claim £30 (About $55-60) a week (If their attendance is high enough), but only in certain situations (Ie, unemployed parents, etc.). I don't know how universal it is in Sweden, though, so I can't make a fair comparison.

I'd probably say Sweden, personally, France and Germany are pretty close, but from what I see (Admiteddly not a huge amount) Sweden just about has a hold on the title.

Yeah, so, basically, the economic aspect is the same, and the social is more radically reformed in communist life. Everyone helping to provide for everyone else is not exactly a radical departure from everyone providing everything. "Communal living" sounds like a throw away and minor consideration when phrased so briefly, but actually deals with all the governmental guff mentioned there.

In context here, it was said that I was describing communism rather than socialism, implying that mildly diluted capitalism is in fact socialism. It seems that, basically, you agree with me in that it is not, so that's the main thing.

Socialism is simply the meeting of the needs of the society through central or local government rather than through private individuals making their own arrangements. There is absolutly nothing that requires that the ownership of the means of production is in the hands of the government for the society to be socialist. The government can contract private companies to meet the needs. It is a question of whether the government is seen as being responsible for pensions, health care, education, housing, employment etc. or whether these "needs" are the responsability of the individual. A socialist country can be very free market capitalist at the same time.

That's a recent corruption. Socialism requires the public ownership of the means of production. Anything else may be called socialism, but that doesn't mean that it is. It's an economic system that might not even have much to do with the government. The free market would take the means of production and exchange out of the hands of the people as a whole, and would cause a society to cease being socialist. Just because Labour called itself a socialist party doesn't mean that it was.

It is hardly recent as the concept of socialism in this sense goes back to, believe it or not, Adam Smith.
(Reading The Wealth of Nations would help a lot of people, It's available on line here (http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html) )

Engels, not Marx, decided to take a term that had been in use and push it to an extreme. Socialism only comes to imply the state ownership of the means of production with the Communist Party Manifesto. Before that it simply iommplied an interest in social factors and not just economic or military ones. See writers on politics such as Locke, Rousseau, Smith, J.S. Mill. Those writers that argue that socialism means control of the means of production by the government are all replying to Engels.

Nah, I still don't like that, because most of the parties in Europe that are here accused of socialist policies are born of or elected by something owed to the more radical idea, I think. I just can't help feeling that the success of social democracy in Europe came originally off the back of socialism in the slightly more radical sense, and as such helped to subdue the trend of uprisings and revolutions pursuing related ideals. Surely most of those parties wouldn't have got off the ground were they not in a serious measure also responding to ideas after Engels' fashion? I have to admit that I've never found party politics engaging enough that I'm well informed on the early history of specific parties, mind. I'm inclined to keep with my old dictionary's assertion that socialism is an economic system requiring public ownership as said.

God, this damn Southern Comfort. My stomach is screaming.

bump

Nah, I still don't like that, because most of the parties in Europe that are here accused of socialist policies are born of or elected by something owed to the more radical idea, I think. {/quote]
Most of the socialist parties in Europe are only just left of centre. Only very few parties, and they tend to cal themselves communists, advocate now, or have ever advocated government ownership of production in the sense that you are suggesting. There are gradations here. Some socialist parties believe that the essential utilities, power and water, should be government owned, othewrs do not.
[QUOTE=Beth Gellert]I just can't help feeling that the success of social democracy in Europe came originally off the back of socialism in the slightly more radical sense, and as such helped to subdue the trend of uprisings and revolutions pursuing related ideals.
This is a marxist view of soft socialism as a capitalist construction to offset the inevitable revolution. It is not how I see the history. Look back at the history. Try for example, Titus Salt (http://www.saltsmill.org.uk/titus.htm) a socially aware employer from Bradford Englan in the middle of the 19th century. Why is he important, well the UK Labour Party has its origins in Bradford in the 1890s:
Only Keir Hardie took an independent line, symbolised by the cloth cap he wore in the Commons. It was he who called the conference in Bradford in 1893 which set up the Independent Labour Party (ILP). source (http://www.historystudystop.co.uk/php/displayarticle.php?article=57&topic=mbr)

I can not speak for the other European socialist groups and parties, but in the UK it was not an easing of an extreme position, but a genuine concern for social issues, arising before Marx and Engels published anything.

Surely most of those parties wouldn't have got off the ground were they not in a serious measure also responding to ideas after Engels' fashion? I have to admit that I've never found party politics engaging enough that I'm well informed on the early history of specific parties, mind. I'm inclined to keep with my old dictionary's assertion that socialism is an economic system requiring public ownership as said.
If it is a good social science or political dictionary, it will include many definitions. I just happen to come from a culture where socialism is not about ownership, but about responsability. (I am not a socialist.)

God, this damn Southern Comfort. My stomach is screaming. Yeh, it does get rather acid after a while.

How about Luxembourg? Small, but richest country in the world... relativly low taxes, an index (we get more money if the prices rise),...
:D

*applauds*

The most socialist, of all European nations, contrary to the practice of the ruling elite there in other parts of the world, is the Vatican City.
Everyone who lives there has all of their needs met by the state. No unemployment, full medical care, housing, food, everything. All provided by their head of state and ruling organisation.

Agreed. Which poses an intruiging question to all those people saying socialism is bad, yet the Church is good.

stupid french think there so cool. just a bunch of surrender monkeys

So, no one said Belgium. Any reason? I put them on here because I thought that they had a massive welfare state. Then again, if they were at the level of socialism France is, Belgium would work to fully intergrate Flanders with Walloonia.

We aren't taught to dislike France that just happens :p Seriously I think it is mainly due to the fact that Fr. isn't willing to bendover and take it from Bush, which we liberals get criticized for as well. The socialism observation is true though, many people just don't want to admit that some rather socialistic policies are the only reason we aren't still in the days of the robber barons.

You people think of capitalism and socialism as black and white.... in this day and age nothing is black and white but everything is just different shades of gray.... just as there is no truely socialist state so there is no truely capitalist state.

Americans are not taught that to dislike or hate socialism, but that we see more socialist programs in our own society (like state control of Amtrack) and their utter failor and/or complete inefficency. Mean while we see the more success of our more capitalist policies such as freedoms of priviate enterprise and the size of our overall economy and its success there in.

I would rather contend Europeans are taught to dislike/hate more capitliastic policies holding their own economies down restricting work hours, pricing power... etc. They always speak of Multinational corrpution... but looking at the grand scheme of things, there is only but a minority of mulitnationals which infact engage in corrupt practices and even they survive only as long as our nations people allowe them to... the day people stop buying their products is the day they change their business practices. Just as we control our politicians with elections.. so we control buisness with purchasing power.

'Cause it seems to be based more on conjecture than on real knowledge of what the situation has been like here during the last decade, with privatisation of most government businesses (notable exclusions being the alcohol monopoly and the medical system...
and how about Norway Finland and Danemark?

are they on diet too?

and how about Norway Finland and Danemark?

are they on diet too?

Norway, I don't think so. The other ones I know too little about. Finland because, well, I can't speak Finnish and can't read their daily papers or watch news in it, and Denmark because I don't care. ;)

Ooh! This debate is getting fun :p .

We always talk about how Europe is so socialist.
"We"? Who is this "we"? Oh, you mean idiots from you-know-what-smart-ass-country who know nothing about Europe? Gotcha.

For your information, Europe is more capitalist today than at any point since WW2.

"We"? Who is this "we"? Oh, you mean idiots from you-know-what-smart-ass-country who know nothing about Europe? Gotcha.

For your information, Europe is more capitalist today than at any point since WW2.
"We" meaning the people on this forum. And I'm not American.

Mind you, Ireland often feels pretty socialist. The government is looking at bringing in a tax on fatty foods in an attempt to curb the trend of child obesity.
For your information, more than 100 of Ireland's top earners used property-based tax breaks to avoid paying an average of more than €200,000 each in tax, according to an analysis of a new Revenue Commissioners' study of high earners. The study shows that 29 of these people paid no tax at all in 2001. All 115 of them appear to have earned more than €500,000, but paid tax at an effective rate of less than 30 per cent in that year. They claimed tax relief of €42 million on property investments in that tax year.

"We" meaning the people on this forum.
Show me one socialist who actually thinks that any country in Europe has achieved some kind of socialism.

The fact is that, for the most part, only hardcore capitalists living outside Europe can get away with calling Europe "socialist" and not having millions of people laugh in their face.

Europe is, of course, less capitalist and closer to socialism than America, but that doesn't mean much. If America is 1000 miles away from socialism, then Europe is 900 miles away - still damn far.

Show me one socialist who actually thinks that any country in Europe has achieved some kind of socialism.

The fact is that, for the most part, only hardcore capitalists living outside Europe can get away with calling Europe "socialist" and not having millions of people laugh in their face.
I can't "show" you, per se. I mean, we can't see eachother. Of course, there are many Europeans that are farther right that think that their respective countries are quite socialist. You, I know, could never be convinced. You are actually farther left than most socialists. I don't know if it's fair to call you a communist, but you are definitly a far left socialist.

So, Constantinopolis disappeared? Good. He's too obsequious for my blood.

I can't "show" you, per se. I mean, we can't see eachother. Of course, there are many Europeans that are farther right that think that their respective countries are quite socialist. You, I know, could never be convinced. You are actually farther left than most socialists. I don't know if it's fair to call you a communist, but you are definitly a far left socialist.
I am a communist, and quite proud of it, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand - after all, communism and socialism are two different things, and I'm using the socialist definition of socialism ("socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are public property under the democratic control of the people"). In Europe, like in America, the vast majority of the means of production are private property and owned by various corporations. Therefore Europe, like America, is very much capitalist.

Like I said, Europe is, of course, less capitalist and closer to socialism than America, but that doesn't mean much. If America is 1000 miles away from socialism, then Europe is 900 miles away - still damn far.

So, Constantinopolis disappeared? Good. He's too obsequious for my blood.
Excuse me?

Excuse me?
Yep. Obsequious.

Of course, there are many Europeans that are farther right that think that their respective countries are quite socialist.
See, that's the thing. Only right-wingers call European countries "socialist". Then again, far-right types tend to call ANY country "socialist", even the USA. Their definition of socialism seems to be "any country that does not perfectly fit my political views is a socialist one".

See, that's the thing. Only right-wingers call European countries "socialist". Then again, far-right types tend to call ANY country "socialist", even the USA. Their definition of socialism seems to be "any country that does not perfectly fit my political views is a socialist one".
Well, I fit that bill. I see strong socialist elements in the US. There are also very strong ones in Japan, too. The most capitalist country is sadly not a country, but it will do: Hong Kong.

Norway, I don't think so. The other ones I know too little about. Finland because, well, I can't speak Finnish and can't read their daily papers or watch news in it, and Denmark because I don't care. ;)

You know, we can of course read the finlands-swede press... Hufvudstadsbladet is quite good (www.hbl.fi). Also, the Finnish Rundradion has news in Swedish at www.yle.fi/internytt. My mother was from Borgå, so I have an interest of what goes on in Finland. I believe their welfare system has shrunk in a similar way ours has.

You know, we can of course read the finlands-swede press... Hufvudstadsbladet is quite good (www.hbl.fi). Also, the Finnish Rundradion has news in Swedish at www.yle.fi/internytt. My mother was from Borgå, so I have an interest of what goes on in Finland. I believe their welfare system has shrunk in a similar way ours has.
Wow. Everyone is from different countries, yet it seems that everyone can understand English. This sorta got me thinking: education in English is mandatory in many countries, and the vast majority of those in Western Europe know at least a little English. Wouldn't it be convenient for more media services to broadcast/print in English as well as its native language?

Wow. Everyone is from different countries, yet it seems that everyone can understand English. This sorta got me thinking: education in English is mandatory in many countries, and the vast majority of those in Western Europe know at least a little English. Wouldn't it be convenient for more media services to broadcast/print in English as well as its native language?

Most national media (whether broadcasters or press) tend to be aimed at an audience within the nation, so their audience is essentially all speakers of their national language (s).
There are a few sites with Swedish news in English, a good one is www.thelocal.se
Also, you can listen to and read news in English from Radio Sweden (Sveriges Radios international channel) at www.sr.se/rs/english

I see strong socialist elements in the US.
Even if that were true (which it isn't, since the socialist elements in the US are very weak), having a few socialist elements is not enough to make a country socialist. Just like having a few capitalist elements would not be enough to make an otherwise socialist country capitalist.

Most national media (whether broadcasters or press) tend to be aimed at an audience within the nation, so their audience is essentially all speakers of their national language (s).
There are a few sites with Swedish news in English, a good one is www.thelocal.se
Thanks. I'll be sure to check it out.

Here's another good source of information (in English) regarding the Scandinavian countries:

www.nnn.se

Wow. Everyone is from different countries, yet it seems that everyone can understand English. This sorta got me thinking: education in English is mandatory in many countries, and the vast majority of those in Western Europe know at least a little English. Wouldn't it be convenient for more media services to broadcast/print in English as well as its native language?
Most media services have English edition available here. Borgoa only linked to Swedish edition, but YLE has english edition too: http://www.yle.fi/fbc/index.shtml , so does the largest newspaper http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/

I think that is the common practice around Europe.

Even if that were true (which it isn't, since the socialist elements in the US are very weak), having a few socialist elements is not enough to make a country socialist. Just like having a few capitalist elements would not be enough to make an otherwise socialist country capitalist.
Yes, but these socialist elements are enough to wreck several parts of America. Our welfare system keeps people dependent and lazy, and does not motviate them to move. The entire utility sector wreaks of central planning. And of course, who can ever forget our lovable Amtrak, and its failing siblings: the Tenessee Valley Authority, and the US Postal Service.

Most media services have English edition available here. Borgoa only linked to Swedish edition, but YLE has english edition too: http://www.yle.fi/fbc/index.shtml , so does the largest newspaper http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/

I think that is the common practice around Europe.
Well that's nice to know. Then watch, I'll see people bitching how this is a propaganda tool of Brussels to destroy local cultures and make all people learn English. If they do exist, they must remember one thing: Brussels is in Belgium :p .

First this: "We" meaning the people on this forum. And I'm not American. And then this:
Yes, but these socialist elements are enough to wreck several parts of America. Our welfare system keeps people dependent and lazy, and does not motviate them to move. The entire utility sector wreaks of central planning. And of course, who can ever forget our lovable Amtrak, and its failing siblings: the Tenessee Valley Authority, and the US Postal Service.
I'm a bit confused.

I'm a bit confused.
Okay, I am American. I was just playing with Constantinopolis. He is very annoying, and has had a few run-ins with my previous nation.

That's ok. I was just wondering where you were from. :)

Yes, but these socialist elements are enough to wreck several parts of America.
What wrecks America is too much unrestrained capitalism, too much inequality and poverty, too much wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the rich, and too many morons like you who want even more capitalism.

Our welfare system keeps people dependent and lazy, and does not motviate them to move.
"Since the state must necessarily provide subsistance for the criminal poor while undergoing punishment, not to do the same for the poor who have not offended is to give a premium on crime."
- John Stuart Mill

The US government spends $50,000 on each convicted prisoner. To spend any less on an innocent poor man would not only be ridiculously stupid, but downright criminally evil.

Also, welfare does not make people lazy and it certainly doesn't remove any motivation. If a man is satisfied with a meager welfare check, then he would be just as satisfied with a low paying job - so he wouldn't be motivated to get more than a low paying job regardless of whether welfare existed or not.

And of course, who can ever forget our lovable Amtrak, and its failing siblings: the Tenessee Valley Authority, and the US Postal Service.
Yes, because the heroic capitalists of Enron and Halliburton are much better... :rolleyes:

That's ok. I was just wondering where you were from. :)
OK

Okay, I am American. I was just playing with Constantinopolis. He is very annoying, and has had a few run-ins with my previous nation.
Awww, I haven't manged to get a higher rating than "annoying" from you? That's too bad. I'll have to put in more effort.

By the way, what was your previous nation?

I'll up the ante a bit. With all of the bitching I hear from socialists regarding the opinion that the countries we're discussing aren't really socialist, I'd like to state the obvious, since it's been avoided:

By those same standards, America isn't really capitalist either. That's the problem.
I guess I'm somewhat of a purist. I think socialist and capitalist countries could do far better if they chose to follow their own political models more honestly and faithfully.

The problems arise when a capitalist society starts "borrowing" from the socialist tableau, and vice-versa.

What wrecks America is too much unrestrained capitalism, too much inequality and poverty, too much wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the rich, and too many morons like you who want even more capitalism.

How is it wrecking us apart?

The US government spends $50,000 on each convicted prisoner. To spend any less on an innocent poor man would not only be ridiculously stupid, but downright criminally evil.

And yet, to spend on him is the worst thing for him. Dependency on one source creates sluggishness, and it breaks the human spirit. It is better that these people look for jobs. Even if they don't find one, at least they are not simple shells that welfare turns them into. It may be more humane if the government shoots them, rather than giving them welfare.
Also, welfare does not make people lazy and it certainly doesn't remove any motivation. If a man is satisfied with a meager welfare check, then he would be just as satisfied with a low paying job - so he wouldn't be motivated to get more than a low paying job regardless of whether welfare existed or not.

Except that in any job, or even looking for a job, people know that better exists for them, and that it is in their reach. A person can also be promoted in a low paying job. In a centrally planned economy, can people be promoted based on merit? No. If that economy is to be efficient, promotions must be based on either seniority, or else overwhelming merit.
Yes, because the heroic capitalists of Enron and Halliburton are much better... :rolleyes:
You take the good and the bad. Of course, there are some heroic people in the businessworld: Bill Gates, Carl Ichann, Lee Iacoca, Alan Greenspan, Carly Fiorina, just to name a few.

Awww, I haven't manged to get a higher rating than "annoying" from you? That's too bad. I'll have to put in more effort.

By the way, what was your previous nation?
New Anthrus.

What wrecks America is too much unrestrained capitalism, too much inequality and poverty, too much wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the rich, and too many morons like you who want even more capitalism.Well, if you're going to be so rude as to label me as a moron, forgive me for openly labelling you as a Che Guerva-Wannabe Douchebag.

I'll up the ante a bit. With all of the bitching I hear from socialists regarding the opinion that the countries we're discussing aren't really socialist, I'd like to state the obvious, since it's been avoided:

By those same standards, America isn't really capitalist either. That's the problem.
I guess I'm somewhat of a purist. I think socialist and capitalist countries could do far better if they chose to follow their own political models more honestly and faithfully.

The problems arise when a capitalist society starts "borrowing" from the socialist tableau, and vice-versa.
I disagree. I think that the middle road between socialism and capitalism is what works best.

I disagree. I think that the middle road between socialism and capitalism is what works best.

The middle road leaves an unresolved tension in the state apparatus. If you want the state to provide the social needs, but also want there to be competition in this provision, then you have to have a mixed system.
This, however leads to a question of control. A private company wins a contract to supply electricity to the country. This is paid for by the state. Now other energy suppliers have to persuade individuals to pay for their energy, while the individual is also paying, through taxation for the state paid energy. No-one is going to do that (except the family of the owners of the other company). This results in a monopoly situation. Now the private company that won the contract has this monopoly and has the ability to set terms to the government. The government can nationalise the company, but this goes off the middle road toward socialism.
The other alternative is that the government can contract various suppliers. These suppliers are theoretically in competition with each other to supply to the people. They have to sell to the government, not to the people though. How does the government buy? Auction, then all will go to the lowest price and we are back to the single supplier solution. Quotas? Where is the capitalist system there? No efficiency gains or any benefit, just one more level of bureaucracy (the management of the company), and one more cost (the share holders).

If you mix the systems you get, in the end, the worst of both worlds. This is what is happening around the world. You live in NI, IIRC. How is the power supply there? What about road conditions? How are the ports? All of these could be better if you had one system or the other. Not the mixed overbloated system thet the UK has in general.

The other alternative is that the government can contract various suppliers. These suppliers are theoretically in competition with each other to supply to the people. They have to sell to the government, not to the people though. How does the government buy? Auction, then all will go to the lowest price and we are back to the single supplier solution.

Sounds good in theory, but in reality it does not work. Look at military contracts for example. Same for road construction.

The less we use the government in this role the better off we all are.

Sounds good in theory, but in reality it does not work. Look at military contracts for example. Same for road construction.

The less we use the government in this role the better off we all are.

That was the point I was making. That mixing government provisioning with private supply to the government does not work.

There are two ways that we can all be better off. Free market capitalism with minimal government (my preferred route) or full blown communism where the whole chain is government (people) owned. Social democracy is a half way house that simply fails to do anything very well other than favour those in positions of power and influence.

Sounds good in theory, but in reality it does not work. Look at military contracts for example. Same for road construction.

The less we use the government in this role the better off we all are.
Military contracts are sorta needed, and better than the government manufacturing arms. But anyhow...
The classic example of this is the Trans-American railway. Constructed in the 1880s, it was seen more as a prestige symbol than a necessity. Note the later copy-cats: the Trans-Canadian and Trans-Siberian railroads came later. Anyhow, two railroad companies, Union Pacific and Central Pacific, were contracted to build the railroad. They were not in competition with eachother. In fact, both had their corrupted execs try to steal the government funds. They did a shoddy job building the railroad, and they didn't bother to repair it. There are other examples of this type of behavior as well, most notorious being Teapot Dome.

bump

bump

It's dead, man. Just let it go in peace...

It's dead, man. Just let it go in peace...
Why should I?

bump