NationStates Jolt Archive

answer me, I always hear that Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, etc are socialist countries, but dont they have a unfair distribtution of income that is contradictory to socialism?

Define "socialist".

Sometimes I think there are as many definitions of socialism as there are socialists.

According to marxism, socialism is a stage after the revolution when the workers have taken over and (through the state and various democratic institutions forming part thereof) control the means of production (or commanding heights of the economy) together. So there would be no private ownership of productive capacity.

Some countries got close in terms of ownership (North Korea might be the best modern example), but socialists would probably argue that no country was ever truly ruled by the proletariat.

Sweden et al are mixed economies. There actually isn't that much state ownership, and a welfare state isn't actually a socialist policy (a socialist would strive to eliminate the need for it by eliminating inequalities). No matter what some may claim, Sweden and the US have extremely similar economic systems - the differences are in specific policies, not the systems themselves.

big hint right here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy)

answer me, I always hear that Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, etc are socialist countries

Bwahahahaha.

Bwahahahaha.

I have to agree with this sentiment, I can't see how anyone could call any social-liberal bourgeois ideology even remotely 'socialist', even Sweden's social democrats are completely revisionist. I don't even know where to begin...

even Sweden's social democrats are completely revisionist.

Fortunately.

Fortunately.

For the bourgeois anyway.

For the bourgeois anyway.

Well, seeing as we're mostly that nowadays, it's fortunate for most of us.

Well, seeing as we're mostly that nowadays, it's fortunate for most of us.
Quite.

*munches on crumpet with butter AND marmite*

It's simple: Capitalism works. It's not nice, or pleasant, but, barring incompetent government stupidity (I'm looking at you, Zimbabwe), it's actually remarkably difficult to fuck up.

Socialism, as opposed to socialist-modified capitalism, in every form and method that has so far been tried, hasn't really had much success at all (Cuba may be a counterpoint, but I want to see what happens after the Castros).

So, generally, we go with what works.

Cuba's the best example to date.

Quite.

*munches on crumpet with butter AND marmite*
*Smokes a pipe*

Quite.

*munches on crumpet with butter AND marmite*

Philistine impostor! We eat crudités with beluga caviar or a nice, vegan tofu-based spread.

What countries would be actually considered a true socialist country?


What I want to know is why people insist on befouling something by mixing states, governments, and countries into it.

I found so far was in a documentary of a small village (community) in the Andes, I don't know in which country it was though. But it was a nice film of the people managing their community with democracy Athens BC style.

As for Sweden being a socialist state, the answer is no.
We have always had a capitalist economy but we have made quite large political regulations to our economy. And we have been able to divert substantial resources to common welfare such as health care, education, public transportation and all infrastructure of national interest owned by the public.

One of the major issues has been to keep income inequality as low as possible.
And we have been successful and our society is in that regard very equal and we have a minimum of hierarchies between people in our society based on their economic resources.

But as government now consists of a coalition of conservatives, liberals, neoliberals and a party mainly of/for farmers, Sweden is rapidly heading for the liberal mainstream market economy.

I'm not a supporter of this and I think we have been very successful in making a frame for capitalism and to make it serve the people as an asset for all our nations citizens.

Cuba

Socialism is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. In this stage contradictions (reactionism) still exist in society, but socialism is typified by a progression in building socialism. Marxist theory essentially points out that during this period bourgeois elements will try to turn the socialist movement back to the capitalist road, and that through a process of 'Criticism and Self Criticism' these elements are weeded out of various stratas of society. The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is the same as socialism, Marx never differentiated the two, socialism is therefore when the working class sets up their own dictatorship, just as the bourgeois had set up their own dictatorship in the past. This 'worker state' would then guide the 'working class' through building socialism until all contradiction and class in society whithered away (including the dictatorship of the proletariat itself) and communism was achieved.

That's pretty much what socialism is, anyone who says something like 'Cuba isn't socialist because they have leaders' probably needs to read up.

I think the OP's problem stems from using the traditional American Right-Wing definition of a Socialist nation. Namely: "every nation but ours".

I think the OP's problem stems from using the traditional American Right-Wing definition of a Socialist nation. Namely: "every nation but ours".
Yeah, I tend to forget now and then that anti-communism is practically institutionalized in the US.

I think that China is another example of a successful socialist nation.


P.S.( Communism is really just an extreme form of Socialism. The term socialist is mostly used to refer to more moderate levels that wouldn't quite classifiy as communist.)I don't think the U.S,Sweden,and Germany are socialist.The real question is how much control of the economy does a gov't need to be concidered socialist or communist.

Socialism is superior!:D

I think that China is another example of a successful socialist nation.


P.S.( Communism is really just an extreme form of Socialism. The term socialist is mostly used to refer to more moderate levels that wouldn't quite classifiy as communist.)I don't think the U.S,Sweden,and Germany are socialist.The real question is how much control of the economy does a gov't need to be concidered socialist or communist.

Socialism is superior!:D
God, not another fool who doesn't know what socialism is.

"The field of Marxist knowledge is always a field of ruins."
At last Eureka says something we can all agree with!

answer me, I always hear that Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, etc are socialist countries, but dont they have a unfair distribtution of income that is contradictory to socialism?
I bet you also heard we're all terrorist-hippies who recycle our own poop too?

"The field of Marxist knowledge is always a field of ruins."
At last Eureka says something we can all agree with!

That you are a fool and understand nothing, most definitely.

answer me, I always hear that Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, etc are socialist countries, but dont they have a unfair distribtution of income that is contradictory to socialism?

Certainly not, because they're capitalist countries, with capitalist econmical model.
From where have you heard that they're socialist countries?

answer me, I always hear that Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, etc are socialist countries, but dont they have a unfair distribtution of income that is contradictory to socialism?

You hear idiocies. A socialist country is a different thing from a liberal social-democracy. (btw, the netherlands isn't even quite social-democratic).

Cuba is probabily a classical example of a socialist country.

I think the OP's problem stems from using the traditional American Right-Wing definition of a Socialist nation. Namely: "every nation but ours".

Aka UnAmerica. Look it up in Uncyclopedia.

Socialism is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. In this stage contradictions (reactionism) still exist in society, but socialism is typified by a progression in building socialism. Marxist theory essentially points out that during this period bourgeois elements will try to turn the socialist movement back to the capitalist road, and that through a process of 'Criticism and Self Criticism' these elements are weeded out of various stratas of society. The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is the same as socialism, Marx never differentiated the two, socialism is therefore when the working class sets up their own dictatorship, just as the bourgeois had set up their own dictatorship in the past. This 'worker state' would then guide the 'working class' through building socialism until all contradiction and class in society whithered away (including the dictatorship of the proletariat itself) and communism was achieved.

That's pretty much what socialism is, anyone who says something like 'Cuba isn't socialist because they have leaders' probably needs to read up.

Well explained.

Socialism is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. In this stage contradictions (reactionism) still exist in society, but socialism is typified by a progression in building socialism. Marxist theory essentially points out that during this period bourgeois elements will try to turn the socialist movement back to the capitalist road, and that through a process of 'Criticism and Self Criticism' these elements are weeded out of various stratas of society. The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is the same as socialism, Marx never differentiated the two, socialism is therefore when the working class sets up their own dictatorship, just as the bourgeois had set up their own dictatorship in the past. This 'worker state' would then guide the 'working class' through building socialism until all contradiction and class in society whithered away (including the dictatorship of the proletariat itself) and communism was achieved.

That's pretty much what socialism is, anyone who says something like 'Cuba isn't socialist because they have leaders' probably needs to read up.

That's one version of socialism certainly, I wouldn't say that socialism is inherently and solely and means of transition to communism.


Socialism- system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.

If mixed economies exist, it is because they are a mixture of socialism and capitalism and not purely one or the other. Many European countries operate with partial control over the means of production/wealth etc, so I would argue many are partially socialist. Then you get down in to determining the tipping point of the balance between more socialistic and more capitalistic policies to determine the categorisation of the country as 'socialist' or not, which is about as sensible as trying to fit shades of grey into black and white boxes. Socialism is part of the multi-dimemsional political spectrum, not a whole separate graph.

I don't think there is a truly socialistic country because I'm not convinced that true socialism can work on a large scale. You might come close to a real socialistic setup in an Israeli kibbutz.

(btw, the netherlands isn't even quite social-democratic)

How's that?

"True socialist country" doesn't refer to anything in the real world, it is a question of more or less, not 'true' or 'false.'

[QUOTE=Dododecapod;13303801]It's simple: Capitalism works.

Who for? The majority!

answer me, I always hear that Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, etc are socialist countries, but dont they have a unfair distribtution of income that is contradictory to socialism?

There are no, nor have there ever been any true socialist countries.

Socialism is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles...
*yawns*

Read anything published after the 1860s?

Seriously EA/AP, Marx and Engels may have been bang on the money with their criticisms of 19th Century industrial capitalism, but you simply can't apply a large amount of their theory to modern-day capitalism.

Hell, our current incarnation of capitalism has achieved/produced many of the things that Marx predicted socialism would achieve/produce, while the 'industrial proletariat' constitute a much smaller and less significant part of the population than Marx envisaged.

And that's why I won't take a definition from socialism from a man -- however brilliant he was in his own time -- who died over 120 years ago.

answer me, I always hear that Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, etc are socialist countries, but dont they have a unfair distribtution of income that is contradictory to socialism?

In the US, the centre is far more rightist than the centre in Europe; Americans refer to mixed, European economies as "socialist"... the Scandinavian countries are fine examples of countries wherein state support is a help and not a hindrance, where people aren't afraid to pay taxes, because they can see the benefits. In America, even the poor will vote Republican if they promise to help the economy...
Wow, I'm getting off topic now. Basically, Americans shouldn't be allowed to use the words socialist or communist until they can prove they understand what they mean.

*yawns*

Read anything published after the 1860s?

Seriously EA/AP, Marx and Engels may have been bang on the money with their criticisms of 19th Century industrial capitalism, but you simply can't apply a large amount of their theory to modern-day capitalism.

Nah, you need Gramsci for that.:D

How's that?

excerpt from wiki (Netherlands).

Since suffrage became universal in 1919 the Dutch political system has been dominated by three families of political parties: the strongest family were the Christian democrats currently represented by the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), second were the social democrats, of which the Labour Party (PvdA) is currently the largest party and third were the liberals of which the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) is the main representative. These cooperated in coalition cabinets in which the Christian democrats had always been partner: so either a centre left coalition of the Christian democrats and social democrats or a centre right coalition of Christian democrats and liberals. In the 1970s the party system became more volatile: the Christian democratic parties lost seats, while new parties, like the radical democrat and progressive liberal D66, became successful.

In the 1994 election the CDA lost its dominant position. A "purple" cabinet was formed by the VVD, D66 and PvdA. In 2002 elections this cabinet lost its majority, due to the rise of LPF, a new political party around the flamboyant populist Pim Fortuyn, who was shot to death a week before the elections took place. The elections also saw increased support for the CDA. A short lived cabinet was formed by CDA, VVD and LPF, led by the leader of the Christian democrats, Jan Peter Balkenende. After the 2003 elections in which the LPF lost almost all its seats, a cabinet was formed by the CDA, the VVD and D66. The cabinet initiated an ambitious program of reforming the welfare state, the health care system and immigration policies.

In June 2006 the cabinet fell, as D66 voted in favour of a motion of no confidence against minister of immigration and integration Rita Verdonk in the aftermath of the upheaval about the asylum procedure of Ayaan Hirsi Ali instigated by the Dutch immigration minister Verdonk. A care taker cabinet was formed by CDA and VVD, and the general elections were held on 22 November 2006. In these elections the Christian Democratic Appeal remained the largest party and the Socialist Party made the largest gains. The formation of a new cabinet started two days after the elections. Initial investigations toward a CDA-SP-PvdA coalition failed, after which a coalition of CDA, PvdA and ChristianUnion was formed.

/excerpt

I'd say that the Netherlands qualify mostly as a liberal centrist democracy.

If you use socialist in the sense that most on this forum do (I refer specifically to the libertarian socialists), then the answer would probably be the Paris Commune.

If you use socialist in the sense that most on this forum do (I refer specifically to the libertarian socialists), then the answer would probably be the Paris Commune.
Perhaps.

If we're going that way, then you could probably add the pre-Bolshevik soviets of 1905 Petrograd, the factory committees of the Spanish Revolution and, at a push, the student assemblies of the 1968 Paris general strike.

As an aside, and an unashamed dig at EA/AP and his Leninist/Stalinist ilk, it's interesting to note that in all of the above situations, the Bolsheviks, Stalinists, Maoists, et al, pushed to dissolve and prevent such associations from happening.

Fuck the Party.

[QUOTE=Dododecapod;13303801]It's simple: Capitalism works.

Who for? The majority!

Yup.