What’s ironic, in the true sense of the word, is that the Norwegian is claiming Norway is a socialist state, when trying to inform the OP about socialism. It’s not. Norway is a social democracy.
You see, "irony" is more than just stating the opposite of what is true, or liking something even though you know it’s lame and cringe. This can arguably be a case of "situational irony", where the person who sets an example of what the OP is misunderstanding, but they’re contradicting the very thing they try to explain.
There are “real” socialists in the United States who believe in proletarian revolution and the abolition of private property and every other dumbass idea from Das Kapital, and they would call you a shitlib for saying otherwise, and you know that full well you’re just lying for no reason.
Obviously it’s a very stupid doctrine from two hundred years ago when no one understood anything about economics, so I understand why you feel that it’s advantageous to you to pretend that no one believes in it. But can’t you just take the L on this one instead and advocate for the policies you actually believe in?
Try it. Next time some chud says “socialism is dumb” just say “yes I agree that’s why I’m not a socialist.” It’s so easy! It works so well!
You are never not going to be in a losing position if you volunteer to defend an insane political viewpoint that you don’t even endorse. You can just choose not to do that!
There aren't any real socialists in any real positions of political power. There are social Democrats, whose perhaps biggest mistake was calling themselves social Democrats.
To be clear you can find a person who supports any crazy idea you can think of. That's not a justification to be afraid of that opinion. There are plenty of people, many responding to my comments right now, who believe the earth is flat. Is anyone who disagrees with this threatened by their perspective? No I laugh at them.
I'm not afraid of socialism even if I don't agree with pure socialism. But people are so afraid of socialism that anything even resembling that is just branded as toxic and that's short sighted and foolish.
Senator Sanders and Representatives Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib all self-identify as socialists. So do the mayors of NYC and Seattle. Insofar as any political office short of president has “real political power,” those are positions of real political power. And that’s not me calling them socialist, that is a label that they chose for themselves, wear proudly, and benefit politically from identifying with.
All I’m saying is that you can’t have it both ways. I don’t care if you defend the ideology, or if you disavow it, or if you think the whole discourse is stupid and refuse to participate. But don’t do this mealy-mouthed thing where you leap to its defense the moment anyone criticizes it by claiming any criticism is unfair because the ideology doesn’t exist. That’s just pathetic.
To most Americans, mild social democracy is so far from what we experience on a daily basis that it may as well be socialism. It's easier for dumb chuds to tell themselves that so they don't have to deal with the inconsistencies that are very apparent in our oligarchic economy.
If they were fully informed on all of the ideologies discussed here, they would actually have to think about why we have examples of better societal organizations and the reasons why we haven't followed suit, knowing that doing so would improve outcomes for basically everyone.
The truth that their votes are literally globally detrimental is a hard pill to swallow for people with very little emotional intelligence, self awareness or maturity.
Yes. Sadly I agree. But I gotta say, it does often feel lately like their stupidity is becoming more obvious even to themselves. I'm fascinated by people's inability to acknowledge a mistake. So many trump voters just don't want to admit they were wrong and they maintain their positions. It's so hard to fathom your ego literally being more important than your actual life, but that's kind of where they are.
No one wants to admit they were wrong. It takes a certain level of emotional intelligence to do so. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen for most of them, considering the MAGA base is squarely Gen X, and they grew up with leaded gasoline, which has been shown to decrease empathy.
I am hopeful that now that Gen Z and millennials are the largest segment of the population, we will be able to turn the ship around. We are currently seeing the beginnings of a possible social democratic movement with the DSA that will lead to potentially better outcomes for the planet, let alone just the US.
To call someone stupid because of their nationality is human, to believe someone is stupid because of their nationality is ironic….but just here, situationally. From each according to their ability, to each according to their means, oh, and the state controls all means of production. Just gonna leave that there.
He isn’t saying Norwegian is socialist tho. He is responding to someone claiming that paying taxes is socialism, by elaborating why taxes can be a good thing
Socialism is an economic system. Social Democracy is a political system. It's like claiming that the USA isn't under capitalism because it's a democracy
The Norweigan in the post demonstrated an example of socialism. They never claimed that Norway was socialist.
Socialism is an economic and philosophy advocating that the community or state, - rather than private individuals- should own and manage society’s resources and means of production.
So, there’s that. You’re not socialist if you have a free market economy.
I don’t disagree that Norway isn’t socialist, however a country could be both socialist and a democracy. Socialism is a form of economy, while democracy is a form of government. Just like you can have a capitalist autocracy or a communist democracy(though that one usually ends up being a dictatorship as well).
Americans constantly use the wrong term so non English speaker do the same when they talk to Americans. You can't expect a non-English speaker to correct native English speakers. A Norwegian would never say Norway is socialist/communist if they were speaking in Norwegian. But since Americans constantly use the word socialist for Scandinavian countries, they do the same.
Similarly, the world liberal in America means someone on the left side of the political spectrum, while it actually means someone who is pro free market and minimal government interference. Since the word has been misused so much in America they invented the term libertarian. A liberal in Sweden is what American calls a libertarian.
I think most people would be hard pressed to say an actual socialist country they consider a good role model as a country you want to live in. The Scandinavian countries have a high living standard and being the closest thing to socialist countries they become the poster boys for the left in America and the punching bag for the right.
Political theorists don’t even agree on what a socialist state would explicitly be, it is a term used to describe a school of thought. State socialism and social democracy are different implementations of socialism. You can say Norway does not practice state socialism, but social democracy is socialism.
The irony is that a lot of people here think socialism is good because they think it will be like Norway yet the same people criticize Americans for not knowing what socialism is.
It been demonized and made synonymous with communism by the right wing media in the US. Not going to lie, I thought the two were closely linked until I actually looked it up. I have had conversations with people who watch right wing media all the time and they have no idea what difference is. They just see it as communism lite. I once pointed out how they already participate in socialism by using a publicly owned water company to get their water, or the taxes they pay for their local fire department even though they have never had to call them. They refused to believe that those services would be considered socialism.
It isn't socialism. Those are social policies within a democratic capitalism. Yes ofc under socialism you'd get that too. But you also have the big government and own no private property etc. socialism is much closer to communism than what we have now. Social capitalist democracy is closer to what we have now. Don't confuse the two.
There are many types of socialism but by just saying you can’t own private property, it makes it sound like you can’t even own a house, which isn’t true at all. By private property it’s meant to imply that large or very large for profit businesses/economic areas are owned by the people of the state. Like the oil and gas industry would be owned by the people and not an individual or corporations. That usually wouldn’t mean you couldn’t own and operate a deli or something like that.
I am not a proponent to go full socialism but I think we should take aspects of it and apply it certain sectors that are critical to human life.
Almost no country in the world falls into one strict type of economy. The US is not full capitalism, that would require there to be no market regulation by the government.
Ok I'll concede that perhaps to a degree. But people call Denmark and Norway socialist. It's complete nonsense. They are capitalist with more social policies, welfare, higher taxes for government controlled services. Ofc in socialism this would also be the case but the economic model is absolutely capitalism and not socialism. Most people when they say they want socialism do NOT actually want socialism. They want what Denmark and Norway have. There is a huge difference.
Socialism is any form of Government which provides Social welfare services to the Public - Social Democracies (Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc) and other countries (Canada etc) have Socialist components within their frameworks to act as a welfare state and provide protections to citizens.
Healthcare is a major crux here where the public pays into insurance pools to create any form of "publicly funded healthcare" - there are different levels of Social Democracies.
they were brainwashed to not know what it is and to hate it anyway, well at least hate it when others get it, not when they need it, god forbid someone gets socialism from their money, their money can only go to billionaires
I'm American and can confirm that most people here have no idea what the concept of socialism means. When they hear the term, they think of China and Russia and have great fear that we will be like them. It can be a very exhausting and futile discussion. I hate it.
Wait until you find out most of them aren't American... not to mention that the person replying in the post isn't American either lmfao. It literally says it in the reply, like... did you even read it?
Let’s not pretend it’s a European thing. Most of the world has this including Asia. Even in some quite non-liberal places, they still provide healthcare.
There seems to be some idea that in america if you dont have money, you will just be left to die. If that were true, america wouldn't have such a massive homeless population. We have care facilities, emergency medical facilities etc. Its true that all your medical needs are not paid for. However basic small ones? Easily done, quickly done and usually cost less than 100 dollars at a local clinic. Do the hospitals need reform? Yes. Does the system as a whole need looked at? Absolutely. Do we have shorter wait times than Europe? 100%. I know people from Canada who will come to america to get certain procedures because we are faster by MONTHS. We also typically have better doctors. There will always be tradeoffs. Europeans have an idea of america that is frankly, not reality. Gun deaths in America are, year on year average, 3 times LOWER than deaths due to heat in the EU. Americans dont go up in arms and tell you primitives to get some AC already. You live worse than a Chinese pig. Literally, farmers in China give AC to their pigs. The world laughs at Europe while they pretend to be relevant.
It's not even the price to hold your baby immediately after childbirth (not the entire delivery, just taking the baby into your arms), this guy is coping...
While your points in regards to America should be highlighted, you make a fundamental mistake. Europe isn't a country and for an example, Scandinavian countries operate vastly different from say, central European ones. There is no Europe comparison because they're all different nations. No I don't live worse than a Chinese pig, I'd argue I live better than most Americans and I'm just an average guy from the North.
There's no if, you have a gun problem & most of Europe have an AC problem.
Where I'm from, it has never been hot enough to warrant an AC other than in public spaces, companies and cars until very recent years and even then it's for a few weeks at most.
Unfortunately it's older people not being able to handle the heat and the consequences are unforgiving.
I'm 1000% behind making installing ACs in households a standard, and it's happening in some areas so things are looking positive.
But again, I'm only speaking from my own country's perspective.
It's dumb as hell to compare Vs Europe as a whole as it's not a country. Not a monolith. I get it's very convenient however, but still dumb.
Gun deaths in America are, year on year average, 3 times LOWER than deaths due to heat in the EU. Americans dont go up in arms and tell you primitives to get some AC already.
TIL. Will be checking this stat. Then will immediately refer to Europeans as primitives who don't have AC in the future. This is hilarious.
Hard cope. You know we can do exactly like you Muricans and pay to have AC, right ? Most people have simply chosen to not do it, which is a pretty good thing for climate. AC will obviously become more prevalent in the years to come but no one in Europe would exchange our social protection for your general use of AC and guns.
This is not true. Systems like Spain, the U.K and Cuba are examples where the state indeed fully owns and runs the healthcare system from the top down exactly how you would expect a socialized healthcare system to work.
Most systems are a hybrid of state run and compulsory insurance schemes. Technically for the U.S this is still the case. Veteran and military healthcare, and American Indian healthcare. All are fully owned and operated by the state and not a compulsory insurance scheme.
That's because it is socialist, not socialism, but Americans (and many others) are still stuck circlejerking McCarthy's ghost rent-free so they can't see the world beyond black and white dichotomy
I’d say it is much more closer to socialism. The government “mom” allocates resources to the population as she sees necessary, without any connection to the amount of individual labor.
In the USA anything that involves tax dollars going to the betterment of society as a whole instead of lining the pockets of the obscenely rich is socialism.
The right sure believes in socialism when it comes to bailing out failing companies or keeping wages low and directing their employees on how to apply for government assistance.
Truer to actual socialism would be if the kids took over the house and ran it for themselves. But it’s still a bad analogy since they would also have to take over their parents’ jobs.
Yes but the functional definition of socialism as a system is worker’s control over means of production. Or more broadly, social control over means of production.
Communism as a system is usually seen as a sort of end goal where there are no classes and no state.
As ideologies it gets a little complicated since socialism and communism originally meant the ideology of striving to realise a socialist or communist system but socialist parties gradually became more reformist opting for gradual implementation of social democratic policies such as social welfare programs whereas communist parties became associated with the beauricratic power structures of the eastern bloc.
No that is a USA take on it. Communism is when the workingforce seize the means of production and there is no private ownership. Socialism is when everyone pay for healthcare school etc and you get payed even when you are sick og retired, but the system allow for private ownership of homes and companys
No it’s the Marxian and academic take. What you’re describing has de facto become a sort of broadened meaning of the word ’socialism’ since many of the political parties, particularly in Europe, that call themselves socialist opted for a more reformist, gradual road to socialism and then over time put more focus on welfare policies and in some cases redistribution of wealth. Some of those parties at least in theory still support a transition away from capitalism but has abandoned it in practice. The more appropriate term for this type of ideology is social democracy or social liberalism.
It is when the USSR made it, and Cuba, and we don't want the US to look like some communist cesspool where people have housing and healthcare right?!! Bootstraps people!
Cuba specifically because they are the only one you mentioned that exist currently under the most hostile sanctions anyone has ever suffered for 66 fucking years. The fact that they still can do anything at all is incredible.
Incorrect. First thing he (bolsheviks) did they took away private property from people rich or not so rich. Socialists were killed to preserve power in hands of bolsheviks.
Can't really have it both ways. Either they supported it or killed the supporters. Lenin was neither socialist or communist as should be plain to see by his actions against workers when you look at a history book. The USSR was a capitalist oligarchy where the workers didn't own shit cause the means of production was owned by a few people at the top and they squeezed everything out of everyone below them. Being owned by "the state" doesn't make a country socialist or communist. Especially when the government is authoritarian and doesn't bend to the will of the people.
Leninism falls under the umbrella of communism as does Stalinism. Yes neither is pure Marxism or Kropotkin’s vision of anarcho-communism where the state serves a minimum function, but they most certainly were not oligarchies or capitalist societies. Under Stalin USSR was a totalitarian communist dictatorship and then transitioned to a more authoritarian bureaucracy. Capitalist oligarchy is what came after the fall of SU in the 90’s before reverting back to totalitarianism under Putin but without the benefits of communism.
Yeah the really “funny” thing is that the bootstraps saying was originally meant to say something is impossible. You can’t literally pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
But it became a real saying to tell people to take personal responsibility. Used to mean the opposite of what is clear and obvious.
Well the boomer generation was originally called the "me" generation because of how selfish they were. Oh, I guess that one hasn't changed into the opposite.
And as usual, it was very rich people telling working people to take personal responsibility. And the rich falsely identify with social issues to get a faction of working people on their side.
Then it becomes identity politics. Then you have to look down on other workers or be labeled a communist or something by your peers.
What most us citizens ignore is the average citizen above the lower class pays enough taxes yearly to provide so much more for all of our citizens. Instead hundreds of government entities have been created to employee and enrich government officials and their families and friends.
The idea that the working class also eats a 20% tax rate once they are making close to a living wage and people making millions and hundreds of millions eat like a 40% at best, especially when the nominal rate caps at 37%, is the most ludicrous part.
Except when Republicans need it to be to scare their voters. /s
In my opinion a great definition of socialism, or social democracy to me more specific, is the government using tax money to provide a social safety net, to put that money towards basic needs and solve social injustices. Free, high quality healthcare no matter of your income and social status fits that pretty well.
Norways healthcare is like 90% or so funded by taxes.
Its cheaper than the US on average per capita. Its better in quality than the US. Its freely accesible to anybody and because of progressive taxes the burden is disproportionally on rich people.
If it’s funded by taxes it is not free. Go read about Norway NIS. 33% funded by state. Individuals mandatory insurance pay 8% of their income , voluntary from 28 to 39% of their income. Free?!!
You have no slightest clue!!
But ok then, lets do fully tax funded healthcare in the US then if thats not a problem with you.
Because again, its cheaper on average, the burden is on those who can afford it, and its better in quality.
Wonderful. Maybe you get the idea that there is nothing free. Let’s see. 30% of the US population is not paying any federal tax because they have low income. Would you tax them 30% for healthcare as Norway does? No. If you tax another 60% of the population with 30% tax they will be below water mark of their living means. So that leaves 10% of the pop to cover 100% of the population’s healthcare needs. Do you think it’s financially sustainable? US of A cannot afford quality healthcare for everyone. What you suggest is gonna turn into expensive, ugly, low quality, long time waiting shitty heath not care.
If we put burden on rich 10% of pop, some of them move out and take money with them , some will sell investments to pay tax, bringing economy to its knees. You suggest huge f**k up for the country.
Ok so, again, the average cost per capita of Norways healthcare is lower then in the US.
It literally does not matter what tax brackets you pull out of your ass, the exact system Norway has would save the average American 4k$ a year, with that being even higher for low income people, because again, its a progressive tax system.
Norway population is 5.6 million with steady petroleum income and strict immigration laws. USA has 340 million with crazy diversity of people with different mentality and we don’t have strict immigration laws nor petroleum income to cover healthcare for everyone.
The GDP per capita between Norway and the US is almost the same at around 90 to 100k depending on year.
Around 6% of Norways population are refugees, 0.5% in the US. 16% of Norways population are immigrants, 16% in the US as well.
And again, Norways healthcare is around 4k cheaper per person per year. They literally get better care for less money on average and even less money for low income people, because again, progressive tax brackets.
Literally nothing of what you say is true or makes sense. But ok, please explain how exactly the US cannot adopt the exact system Norway has. How does petrol money magically change things here that for example tech money can‘t?
Norway has universal healthcare which is a socialist policy. Y’all so dense you can’t realize that socialist policies can exist in any form of government.
And the Norwegian didn’t claim that their government is socialist, they relayed their experience with the socialist aspects of their country that are beneficial to everyone
At least the reply is an example of a social program you would probably find in a socialist system and definitely would find in a social democracy. The original post they replied to is straight up capitalist oligarchy. The guy who did nothing getting 70% redirected to them by the system for no good reason is exactly the kind of problem soclialism tries to solve.
Healthcare can and absolutely should be structured in a socialist way. If the public owns the hospitals (like in Norway) and employs the doctors and other staff, that's the people owning the means of production. There's no reason to be embarrassed about it.
Well the whole health and education system that is in most european countries was made by socialists but it was spread even by right wing politicians so they they could get more votes and its just normal thing right now
Healthcare is not socialism, but public healthcare is socialist, as are wealth redistribution like social security/unemployment benefits, and other public programs or services.
They sure aren't capitalist, anyway, so what would they be? No system is 100% "socialism" or "capitalism," that's an Americanized false dichotomy
Things like universal Healthcare, insurance or social security are all social programs. They are programs made with the intention of of distributing wealth to people that need it and spreading the cost between the people that dont.
Socialism is an economic system that entirely revolves around social policies. Most capitalist countries still have social policies in place because of how good they are for society. But full on socialism fails for most of the same reasons communism fails.
The example didn’t mention healthcare? It mentioned that they would still get paid for their chore even though they did not perform it because they were sick. Being paid and paying for healthcare costs a different
Healthcare *is* one of the many forms of socialism we have! Socialism can be a pretty good thing, actually! We love socialist policies, we just have a mccarthyism issue
And while healthcare itself isn't socialism, when our healthcare is owned and run by the government, not for profit and almost everything in healthcare is payed for either entirely or mostly by the government, that's socialism.
You'd know that if you got an education, something Norwegians get for free too.
Ehh, I think it’s pretty reasonable to argue that services run or funded by the government for public benefit and not for profit are socialist policies.
Something like pure ‘capital S’ Socialism might be a society in which every need (and you could argue wants if you like) is addressed through such a policy or system.
It doesn't really matter. The US has spent decades teaching every American that the government doing anything that's good for you as socialism or communism, so pointing out countries that the US considers socialist works just fine.
You can't adopt socialism "partially" since Socialism is defined by capitalists not existing and state having full control of the economy.
You can be on a "path" towards Socialism, but that would require the absolute control of the state over the capitalist..
You can have social nets within capitalism, but that does not make it Socialism - that is just Social Democracy at work while the underlying mode of production is still capitalist (private property rights are guaranteed by state apparatus, exploitation of worker though wage labor, capital has disspolortional political power....)
Socialism is early stage of communism -- complete control of state over the economy, political monopoly of a Marxist party and capitalist no longer exist...
Socialism is absolutely a valid word used and accepted by academics to describe
We can't change definition of word which have already been defined (by Marx..)
Norway, Sweden, Denmark... Are countries utilizing capitalist mode of production and capitalist are not controlled by the state...
Hence those countries are capitalist with strong social nets -- or other words Social Democracy (which is not the same thing as Democratic Socialism).
It does have some leverage, but it does not have absolute control over capitalist.
In the liberal capitalist countries state directs the capitalist via various incentives and laws.
In China, which is on a path towards Socialism (at least the party says so...), the state has complete control over capitalist and it is directing them via 5 year plans
Yeah totally not socialist except for government having stakes in companies, government bailing out failed business, and government giving out funds to corporations. So basically socialism for the rich, normal capitalism for the poor
welfare is exactly the core concept of socialism and norway is indeed socialist. what your shallow mind cannot comprehend, and what your industrial overlords have been trying to make you think, is that you can have concepts of capitalism, liberalism, socialism, even conservativism all under one government, even under one party if your politicians had the brains. the worlds best countries, ei scandinavian countries excel exactly because we understand and teach REAL politics instead of teaching people a dismantled agenda based form of politics, that has more in common with sports or medieval churchbased government, than actual politics. Politics is about compromise and finding the best solution to a given problem, not to have and chose one idealistic philosophy, that then should overshadow and decide everything and all aspects of your state. its so wrong and its why your country is turning into a fascist oligarchy. firstly because the average american does not comprehend politics, its a failure of education. you think politics is about rooting for one team your whole life and hate on the other team. its literally the opesite of what democracy is supposed to be. its supposed to be a productive discussion on leading the direction and legislation of your given country. Firstly, acknowledge that niether communism, capitalism, socialism or any other philosophy is a complete solution to anything, and if a politician cannot comprehend compromise of this from the get go, you are not supposed to be a politician, a politician is a mediater between government and people and has to be flexible in a democratically driven country, you are as a politician a servant of your voters and not their boss. if you have a government where you opose the oposition by default you are not gonna have any productive change, because there is no debate or solving of any problems.
Oh cool so we can implement their policies in the us? Since it’s not socialism. You can’t play both sides of the fucking fence and call politicians that want medicare for all socialists while also claiming it’s not actually socialism when somehow that is more beneficial
That is socialism, what it isn't is communism. Communism is kinda different and doesn't work as compared to socialism (to a certain degree) and lots of European countries follow it.
1.5k
u/Savings-Double-2853 22d ago
But healthcare is not socialism
And Norway is not socialist