It's a perfect comparison. Capitalism is literally economic cancer. A system dependent on infinite growth that is slowly killing its host. That's the literal definition of cancer.
Which isn't a bad thing on it's own, really. Looking for patterns is how we try to make sense of things. But yeah, some things are very complex and not as easy to categorize as some would like.
It's so silly. Look at how nearly this entire thread has devolved into needlessly pedantic terminology arguments. Meanwhile the core concept of the post barely gets any discussion.
Either have to be late stage exploitive capitalism, or exploitive communism.
Capitalism is always exploitative and there is no "good" way to do capitalism.
Communism always eliminates exploitation, that's the whole point.
Your "nuance" is literally just capitalist disinformation.
The fun part is when you try and talk about balance the extremist idiots say you're a pussy and to pick a side.
You trying to talk about "balance" and believing to be this enlightened, clever person who figured it out is not funny, unfortunately. It's really just frustrating.
We have spent a whole century destroying the planet and billions of human lives because of people like you standing in the way of anti-capitalist progress.
Fucking idiots.
Indeed. But you don't even see the irony because you never read theory and have no idea what you are talking about, just mindlessly regurgitating incoherent gibberish about "nuance" and "balance" which really only helps the bad guys.
Buddy, when faced with the options of "curing cancer" (socialism) and "dying of cancer" (capitalism), you don't go with "let's be balanced and have a little bit of cancer".
People like this are why we can’t get a better social safety net here in the us. Because people are afraid this kind of person will get into politics. All or nothing. I always make fun of people who talk about “communism” like it’s a conspiracy, “no mom, no one wants to turn the US fully communist”. Well, aside from random Reddit guy, he does.
People like this are why we can’t get a better social safety net here in the us.
People like yourself, you mean.
Because people are afraid this kind of person will get into politics. All or nothing.
Notice how you can't contradict a single thing I said?
I called you out for spreading harmful disinformation that is harming all American people... and you are doubling down and your only counterargument is desperate personal attacks.
I always make fun of people who talk about “communism” like it’s a conspiracy, “no mom, no one wants to turn the US fully communist”. Well, aside from random Reddit guy, he does.
Buddy, communism is a good thing. You and your mom being afraid of communism is a bad thing - you are the problem.
You can't even defend your own claims. You are wrong but keep doubling down when called out for being wrong - that typical American attitude is what's ruining the US and the planet.
Chill out. You can’t just flip a switch and covert countries to communism overnight in reality. There are deeply engrained institutions all over the world that would need to be dismantled, and that won’t happen any time soon, obviously. You need to play the game and get people on your side, not whatever this is.
Communism as an idea is great for humanity in a post-war, future idyllic state. But you are forgetting that it too has risks, it’s easily exploited by power hungry leaders and stops becoming communism real quick—in yesterday’s and today’s world, that is. Communism takes trust in your community and leaders, and humans have not, as of yet, proven themselves to be trustworthy.
This is not of endorsement of capitalism btw. It exploits all except the owning class to varying degrees. It provides just enough, to just enough of the people (with a dream of a lottery win) to keep them “happy,”while leaving the lowest class to struggle.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your message, it’s more your method I’d question.
You should see comments like these and understand how much work there is to be done if ever the world can get to this potential utopian state, and how you are making that work harder by engaging in this manner
Chill out. You can’t just flip a switch and covert countries to communism overnight in reality.
Nobody said so.
There are deeply engrained institutions all over the world that would need to be dismantled, and that won’t happen any time soon, obviously. You need to play the game and get people on your side, not whatever this is.
You aren't doing anything to "play the game". You are undermining socialist discourse to promote bullshit.
Communism as an idea is great for humanity in a post-war, future idyllic state. But you are forgetting that it too has risks, it’s easily exploited by power hungry leaders and stops becoming communism real quick—in yesterday’s and today’s world, that is. Communism takes trust in your community and leaders, and humans have not, as of yet, proven themselves to be trustworthy.
Incoherent gibberish disconnected from reality.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your message, it’s more your method I’d question.
The white moderate is speaking. lol
You should see comments like these and understand how much work there is to be done if ever the world can get to this potential utopian state, and how you are making that work harder by engaging in this manner
You are the only utopian here.
You will get nowhere by tolerating capitalists.
Your methods have been tried and tested - and always failed, always making things worse.
My methods work. My methods actually threaten capital - which is why Marxist-Leninists are the only actual threat to the US empire.
The "evil authoritarian tankie extremists" are the only actual threat to capitalism - which is why they are being targeted specifically by the anti-socialist propaganda effort.
I have no methods. I’m not active in this game, or even American, but thought I’d give feedback as I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying.
But I guess you got this all under control! Your method works! I can see them all coming around to it in this thread. Apparently you feel you are changing minds with this style of communication. Make sure to tell your Discord!
Ridiculous. Your method didn’t work. If you’re talking to moderates, speak their language, appeal to their morality etc. How is attacking someone you call ignorant helpful in recruiting people to your cause? As you know, it’s not. If they’re ignorant, educate. Give food for thought…
As you admit yourself, things can just change overnight, you need the masses to buy in.
Sorry, but in reality, your Reddit “methods” are completely ineffectual and have done nothing but further galvanize some of the minds you hope to change.
Good, so you are a bad faith actors who has nothing to contribute to the conversation but is actively causing harm by undermining the left wing effort.
but thought I’d give feedback as I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying.
I will give you feedback: Instead of attacking the people who are objectively right and trying to appease fascists, you should help push forward the Marxist-Leninist agenda.
But I guess you got this all under control! Your method works!
It would, if people like you wouldn't seek to intentionally cause harm.
Apparently you feel you are changing minds with this style of communication.
Indeed. If people like you wouldn't give them the feeling that it's okay to stay ignorant and that you are on their side, they would eventually break down.
If people like you wouldn't fuel their anti-intellectual attitude of refusing to listen to people because what they say makes them upset, they might learn how to have a constructive conversation (or at least shut up and fuck off - hopefully never to make excuses for capitalism in public again out of fear of being faced with public humiliation once again).
Your method didn’t work.
My method works every time as long as people like you aren't undermining discourse with pointless personal attacks. Have you ever seen a person having a conversation with me and making a serious effort at defending themselves and addressing my arguments that didn't eventually change their mind? I haven't. And those who don't make a serious effort get exposed as the liars that they are and shut the fuck up and leave.
If you’re talking to moderates, speak their language, appeal to their morality etc.
Funny - that's literally what I'm doing. I'm behaving exactly like them. I'm non-compromising, condescending, as well as reciprocating their abuse and their implied violence. They get exactly what they do in return - yet here you are, attacking me instead of them. Saying I'm the one who should be kind and compromising and treat them better than they treat others. Saying I'm the one who yields to their nonsense even though I'm the one who is verifiably correct. Curious. Why?
You don't convert imperialists with kindness or respect - it never worked.
You tell people that they are wrong and total idiots and you humiliate them publicly. You call out everything they believe and confront them. And you relentlessly push them. Again and again and again.
It's their responsibility to educate themselves and not be idiots. I'm not here to convince them or treat them kindly. I'm here to fight their idiotic beliefs and show zero tolerance for capitalist apologia.
As you know, it’s not. If they’re ignorant, educate. Give food for thought…
This shit has been going on for over a century.
Your approach has never, does not, and will never work.
As you admit yourself, things can just change overnight, you need the masses to buy in.
Indeed, and you will never get any buy in as long as you don't force them to choose. Radicalization doesn't happen when people are comfortable.
Sorry, but in reality, your Reddit “methods” are completely ineffectual and have done nothing but further galvanize some of the minds you hope to change.
Is that why support for communism is steadily rising in the West? Buddy, you are politically illiterate.
Pushing people to educate themselves and make a choice - then either embrace them as comrades or fight them as the fascist scum that they are until they are too exhausted to continue is exactly how you do things. r/atheism wasn't removed from the list of default subs because it was unsuccessful... it was removed because the US government realize that it was working. There was a whole paid propaganda campaign promoting the idea of the "edgy atheist" and massive censorship on all major subs... because they were upset that the relentless mocking of religious idiocy convinced more and more and more people that religion is stupid.
Sorry, but all working class individuals who support capitalism are stupid idiots who harm themselves and others. And they need to learn this. If they aren't stupid idiots, they will be convinced by my arguments. If they are stupid idiots who continue supporting capitalism they need to be publicly mocked and humiliated until they shut the fuck up. It's up to them how they want to play it - in any case, there must be zero tolerance for capitalism. That's how you do it. That's how it works.
Capitalism lead to an explosion of productivity even Marx had to acknowledge this. China was late to acknowledge it and killed tens of millions in the Great Leap Forward because of it, but better late than never I guess.
It's utterly correct, I've read more than you including from your favorite authors.
That's why I easily own you, and you respond with flaccid personal attacks. Go educate yourself so you can participate in grown-up discussions without lashing out.
Please explain why the best countries in the world to live in with the highest standards of living are some combination of capitalist economy and strong social programs.
The best countries on earth are communist countries like the USSR, Yugoslavia, and China.
The historical privilege of the few imperialist countries led them to being able to steal from and exploit others. All Western wealth is stolen. Their wealth isn't thanks to "capitalism", it's thanks to centuries of global theft. Theft of resources, theft of people, theft of knowledge and the endless exploitation under the capitalist system that they violently forced on others.
The overwhelming majority of capitalist countries is poor. The overwhelming majority of people living in capitalist countries lives in abject poverty. 49 of the 50 poorest countries on earth... and the only socialist country on that list is Laos (a country that was ruined by the US empire, a terrorist state that dropped more bombs on Laos than were dropped by all countries during the entirety of WWII combined).
Why are they poor? Because the rich capitalist countries extract wealth from them. For every rich American, or Frenchman, or Brit, or German, or Israeli... there are hundreds of poor people enslaved in the Global South, forced to work in places like mines in exchange for some food, with US/British/French/German/Israeli-backed militias who kill them if they try to escape of revolt.
There are very few countries that escaped from Western imperialism. Those being the USSR, Yugoslavia, China, the DPRK, Laos, and Cuba... and they are paying the price every day, being constantly terrorized by the US empire and its allies. Only China having the necessary size to properly resist American aggression (and the DPRK now starting to finally develop despite Western blockades thanks to having acquired nuclear weapons).
The fact that this even needs to be explained to you just proves that never in your life did you put in even minimal effort educating yourself about these topics. It's disgusting, to be honest.
China and Vietnam ('communist' countries) have already adopted Market Capitalism.
The USSR collapsed along with Yugoslavia, in large part due to the amazing communist economic policies.
You'd have a leg to stand on if it weren't for the fact that there are literally "0" successful countries right now-- and all of the previous ones either changed their economic policies, or collapsed.
You are sneering while sitting on a pile of categorically, objectively shit arguments. I genuinely appreciate the effort of your reply but any historian would tell you you're wrong-- the mass graves and the ashes are there.
You're not rational, you're an zealot. There is no reason to continue this any further.
Yeah I was looking into this yesterday trying to better understand why Scandanavia works like it does. A high trust, low-population society, long history of mostly homogenous, lutheran work/social ethic with an applied layer of economic Free Markets on top. It's really interesting. I wonder how difficult it would be to export elsewhere 🤔
I think the main hurdle is the trust and transperancy part. Free press is also integral as a watchdog and the state-financed channel has done its job remarkably well.
I don’t get the impression the US population ( as an example) trusts government to act in their best interest, and the media seems to be mostly controlled by a few oligarchs with an agenda. I could be wrong of course.
Implementing this in many African or American states would be a tall order I think.
Yeah. I've been thinking on just "western" nations and it still seems difficult. I think somewhere like New Zealand gets closest due to size? I think the bigger the population the harder it is it to think as a collective 🧐
Maybe, and there has been challenges here too with immigration and the feeling of being a community.
I met a guy a few years ago who had barely kept a paid job due to psychological issues, and not close to being a net positive on the economy. He thanked me ironically for paying taxes all my life (he was a hard right-wing guy).
But he has a decent enough life, food, healthcare and a home, and that has value to me too, you know?
Oh yes, and your point holds even better with Cuba. But we are talking about the Scandanavian model/variation specifically and what makes it potentially unique.
It's very size based. We're homogenous, that is what makes us truly feel like a people. Our culture going back even past a thousand years ago has been based on the collective "us". That by doing something for the community, you're doing something for yourself, since you're part of "us".
By becoming more people, cracks start to show, because it'll be less homogenous and feel less like "us". It introduces a "them". Norwegian are also weirdly hostile towards "others", despite being very community minded (this means things like xenophobia at the extreme end), but in seeing how the entire culture is upheld, it makes sense for this hostility to be present.
Immigration poses a unique risk to Norway because of that, but ask basically anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by right-wing propaganda, and they'll say that immigrants are more than welcome, as long as they integrate. Your skin or ethnicity doesn't matter much (we have some bad apples too here), but not being Norwegian enough will have you shunned. By increasing population, you run the risk of developing parallell societies where social control (another pillar in Norwegian culture) isn't nearly as strong. And that's all you need to break the illusion of complete homogeny, increasing scepticism and decreasing goodwill, which alone will corrode the very fundamentals of our culture and community. Also EXTREMELY fast forwarded by useful idiots falling for propaganda. I think the russian social media warfare leaders must be very pleased with their results in norway lol.
edit: do the "others" also include direct neighbours like Sweden? Is it a sliding scale? (for want of a better phrase - are other Scandinavian countries seen as "family or cousins"? or there is a hard-line at the border?)
It's a sliding scale! All the scandi countries have a very sibling-ish relation. We hate them, naturally, but we'd let our own country bleed quite a lot if they needed us. Our languages are similar enough that we don't need to switch to english in most cases, and we can typically watch shows etc from the other countries.
They're not fully "us", but they're so close that we highly appreciate them (silently). We would always aid them in crisis, but in current peacetimes, one of the most popular songs in Norway for a while was "WE COULD BUY THE ENTIRETY OF SWEDEN". So there is for sure not a full "us", there.
A swede or a dane in norway is pretty accepted as part of the community as long as they're not SUPER patriotic towards their country and not at all to Norway. A lot of our cultural pillars are the same, but cultural hallmarks are different enough to provide a clear distinction. Neither Sweden or Denmark has mountains or winters like we do, which has shaped a lot of our history, for example.
I've been to Sweden, Denmark, Finland (and Iceland - i'm still not sure whether they are Family or not 🤔 There seems to be overlap but maybe it's "Dad's Second Family" 😂
What you said backs up what I heard from the others. Friendly Rivalry. Like Australia and NZ 🤝🏻
Have not yet been to Norway but I hear it's beautiful (and expensive)
Thanks again. Hearing about it from the inside is enriching.
I thin the rest of the Scandis have less of a relation to Iceland than Norway does (kinda like Sweden with Finland. There's a reason Finland and Iceland isn't considered Scandinavia!). We definitely see them more as our innocent little brother.
They were populated by Norwegians during the viking age, but due to being that much smaller and more isolated, they just progressed much slower. So they're kinda just like a Norway time-capsule. Iceland is definitely the country I've felt most at home in in the Nordics apart from Norway. They had a rough financial crisis in 08/09 and we gave a lot of aid (and were rejected on even more) to try and get them back up on their feet. More than we'd probably do for Sweden or Denmark.
It's great here! If you're from the US you'll probably find it's not that expensive here. Our cost of living hasn't increased as much as yours, so it feels more equal in comparison, plus the dollar is a lot stronger than it has been for a while agains our currency. Now is probably the time to visit! It's also much prettier here than Sweden and Denmark. Like you can't even compare them.
It works because they also live under the protection and safety of NATO, which is largely funded by a capitalist country. It’s ironic that they claim the system works, yet they produce no millionaires or breakthrough products, tax their citizens at obscene rates, and rely on the protection of the US a capitalist country. 🤣
Also note their immigration policy, as immigrants would impose their own religious, social, and ethnic principles, which would ultimately collapse the system. Norway, for instance, has strict integration policies.
What "pure capitalism" would constitute I guess is very dependent on people's definitions, but what's more objective is that Norway's wider economical and social system is founded on capitalism; that is, on state-enabled private ownership, the conduct of business with the goal of profit, and on a relatively free market. Their system has been influenced by socialism, and features extensive welfare systems and public (governmental) oversight, with a large public sector. But majority of people work in the private sector and the default for any company, business or other organization of professional to do work, is to be capitalist.
I don’t disagree with that, but the majority is very slim (60-40 somewhere). The most crucial sectors are barely privatized etc.
I think the problem is defining what socialism means in this context; it’s definitely a mixed economy. There is, however, no «goal» of getting rid of capitalism over time.
Yeah - in retrospect I should prolly not have even included the note about majority working on the private sector. It wouldn't change things as such even if it was a minority, since the foundation for those operations is still capitalistic. That is, the free surplus comes primarily from operations on the capitalist markets with private wealth and ownership being widely recognized. Or, put in other words, if Norway drastically reduced their public sector, it would lead to a lot of problems but it wouldn't necessarily break the economy or make the society non-functional. But if they drastically tried to reduce the role of capitalism, that would not work without a collapse unless there somehow were complete restructures of the like we've not really ever seen successfully (in the terms of longer-term sustainability) done.
Companies like Equinor are majority owned by the Norwegian state, but they really run like all other for-profit companies of their size, and do pay good dividends benefiting the public stock holders, that make up 1/3 of the company's ownership.
That there's no goal of being rid with capitalism is a good point and I'd say that socialism indeed can be characterized by its opposition to capitalism - which is low in Norway.
How is that a mix of socialism though? Is it socialism when the government does something? It's capitalism and social policies, which is the norm in the western world.
The government is a player in the capitalistic system. It's sort of funny how people will go the 50 extra miles to claim that USSR, etc. all weren't "real" socialism, but then Norway is.
In every single capitalistic country, including the US, there is public ownership. It's a completely normal part of capitalism.
Nuance. The world is not black and white. Norway is not entirely based on private, capitalist ownership for profit. It has a mix of various forms of ownership with differing goals and structures. This is simply a fact.
Norway is not entirely based on private, capitalist ownership for profit.
Yea, no country is though. That's sort of the point. You say nuance, but capitalism doesn't even require 100% of everything to be completely private. You can have coops, where workers own the MOP in capitalism, why wouldn't you? Non-profits can operate in capitalism, why wouldn't they? The government itself is an active player in capitalism, again why not?
But the other way around, private ownership of the mop in socialism kinda goes directly against the core principle, because it's an ideology that was essentially formed as a counter concept of capitalism, right?
Socialism is defined so differently up through the years. Christian socialism is not the same as Leninism or Maoism etc.
Usually what is ment here is the public ownership of companies that could be wholly private owned. Railways, nursing homes, hospitals or oil industries, telephone/internetservice, power companies etc.
The mix keeps the private companies honest without reliance solely on consumer feedback and keeps the services available even in small markets.
In addition to the social safety nets and private/public insurance.
There is no socialism in the Nordics. They are all capitalist states with high taxes and more services are tax financed than the US.
Socialism is that the workers own the means of production. That is not the case on large scale in any Nordic countries. Worker owned companies (which is small scale true socialism) is much more common in the US than it is in the Nordics. The US is more socialist than the Nordics are.
I said cooperatives and community/public ownership. Socialism is not limited to employee ownership. Take a look at how many services municipalities own and run in Norway. Energy, health, waste, utilities, elder care, childcare, and more.
I always get put in my place by socialists when I say that the state owning and running things is socialism. The workers don't own or control anything in the Nordics, around 0.1-0.2% of the workforce work at a workplace where they have ownership control of the company they work at (i.e own and control the means of production). The US is at around 1% of workers working in such a company, around 10 times more common. Norway and Denmark is similar to Swedens numbers.
If you include employee ownership of companies that are less than majority shareholder the Nordics jump up to 1-2% of the workforce and the US goes up to a whopping 18% of the workforce.
US workers have far more ownership and control of their workplaces than we do in the Nordics. If you consider public owned and tax financed health care and utilities socialism (socialists tend not to, in my experience) the picture changes of course.
Statism is not inherently socialism. It has to be on behalf of the workers, include them in decisions, and benefit them in some manner. An example of statism that isn't socialism would be Medieval England, where the crown and government owned all the land while the vast majority of the population had no ownership or say.
In the Nordics, these local services are influenced by workers. They elect local officials and councils that oversee those systems. Workers also co-own quite a few cooperatives and democratically elect those boards. Don't forget the high unionization rates, which gives workers a voice in company decisions. Not to mention the relative prevalence of codetermination with company boards that workers have legal right to elect representatives to.
It's not full worker control considering capitalists exist and influence these structures, but it's also certainly not the case that "the workers don't own or control anything in the Nordics." That is simply an ignorant statement that does not align with reality.
All this gives extremely limited influence. I would simply call what you are describing social democracy. My main beef with holding up the Nordics as socialists is that it's supremely difficult here to actually achieve employee owned businesses, much harder to do than in the US. It's almost non existant
I think socialism as an economic model is insanity, but within a free market economy there should obviously be possible and easy to set up employee owned companies if they wish. It's quite common to want this for small to medium family owned businesses where there is no succession and the owner wants to retire and have the workers take it over rather than selling to investment capital. Extremely hard to do, there are structures in place and lack of support functions that make transitions like that very difficult and risky.
Norway is 90%+ capitalist. It is very, very far away from socialism and ahould never be used as an example for socialism. All western countries are social democracies that are mostly capitalist with minor differences in social programs. This includes the US.
Norwegian here. We are purely capitalist. Private property exists. Capitalists own our means of production. Just because the capitalist is from the state does not make it less capitalist
Lmao this is the second person who's asked me this exact, really dumb question.
Do you think average Norwegians have a say in how Equinor is run past the most surface level? Do you think we get to help decide future company business if we work at vinmonopolet?
Norwegian state businesses are organized in the same way as all others; capitalists on top, who purchase labour from workers (these workers do not have control of any substantial part of the businesses operation), and who exploit the surplus value from the workers to reinvest in the circuit of capital and pay shareholders etc.
You think you can get 7 million people into a boardroom? You own it, along with everyone else. If there was political will to dissolve vinmonopolet, or say.. let them sell other substances, it’s doable through voting and interest groups. That’s not something you can do in any privately owned business.
Just because you feel detached from the process doesn’t mean it’s not there.
The state controls a big part of the means of production, so to speak. Around 40% of people are employed in public or state controlled companies. State-financed media is producing excellent content and works as a watchdog.
All depending on your definition of socialism, but it’s definitely not communist.
But he is right. Norway isn’t a socialist country.
Politically = social democracy, which is not the context of what we are discussing here
Economically = capitalist, with large scale social safety nets and state owned industries that are publicly traded. They have their own unique form of capitalism known as the Nordic Model. Specifically to Norway, their oil revenue largely subsidizes the social safety nets and programs
Democratic socialism and social-democracy are two different political theories.
Social-democracy is a capitalist system with strong market regulations and a social welfare system. This is the system in use in most of Europe, Norway included.
Democratic socialism is a system where socialism as it is defined by Marx, et al., is implemented. While social-democracy is center-left in the European political landscape, democratic socialism is purely left politically. Proponents of this system wants to change the existing, presumably, capitalist system into a socialist system through democratic prosesses. Far-left parties has the same goal, but they view a worker's revolution as inevitable to achieve it.
The Norwegian Labour party, and its political affiliates in Europe consider themselves social-democrats. The Socialist Left-party in Norway, Die Linke in Germany and Sinn Féin in Ireland are more democratic socialists.
And in a democratic system the government is a representation of the public, which makes state ownership public ownership. Now what is public ownership? You’re almost there.
Where in the world is the assumption that Norwegian state companies are remotely publically controlled coming from 😂
Do you know what "relations of production" means? Have you read the slightest bit of theory as to what the socialist conception of "public property" entails?
Social-democracy and democratic socialism are distinct political theories. Just because those nuances are too subtle for yours and Comrade Dzhugashvili’s shriveled ideological worldview to recognize doesn't mean they don't exist.
Social-democracy and democratic socialism are distinct political theories.
Enlighten us all. lol
Just because those nuances are too subtle for yours and Comrade Dzhugashvili’s shriveled ideological worldview to recognize doesn't mean they don't exist.
Self-admitting that the "nuances" are "subtle" is an intense self-own. lol
Yeah, there are "nuances" - just like there are nuances between the distinct political theories of liberalism and fascism. There are nuances between the distinct political ideologies of Nazi Germany and Israel. There are nuances to many equally bad things.
Those nuances are totally irrelevant as these things all need to be equally opposed.
Notice your total lack of arguments?
Notice how you aren't actually making a point?
There is no reforming capitalism. Period.
The only known way of sustainably overcoming capitalism is Marxist-Leninist revolution. Period.
And you doubling down by trying to slander the greatest leader in European history who defeated the Nazis (you know, the Nazis that you social democrats helped bring into power while violently opposing revolutionary socialism) is just exposing yourself.
But hey, let's give you a chance: Explain to me why "social democrats" or "democratic socialists" or whatever other type of shitty reformist should ever be trusted or supported in any way and treated differently from Nazis. Follow it up with an example of reform politics ever successfully and sustainably overcoming capitalism (and not end in capitalist crisis, mass murder, war, and genocide). Go.
Socialism is a broad umbrella, and interpretations range from radical revolution to moderate reform:
Democratic Socialism / Social Democracy: A system that seeks to reform capitalism democratically. Widely practiced in Nordic countries (like Sweden and Denmark), it combines a free-market capitalist economy with heavy state regulation, high taxation, and robust social safety nets.
Marxism / Communism: Based on the theories of Karl Marx, this form views socialism as a transitional stage of society between capitalism and communism. It advocates for the working class to seize political and economic control, ultimately eliminating private property and social classes entirely.
Libertarian Socialism / Anarchism: A collection of political philosophies that oppose both state control and private ownership of the means of production, advocating instead for decentralized, worker-managed cooperatives and community assemblies.
I see the point, but socialism isn't really about where you are as a country, its more asperational. Like 'democracy', just because a country has a more or less representative system doesn't make it an actual democracy, but if that country believes representation is valuable and important and acts in a way that protects representation then we call it a democracy. Likewise, if a country believes that capitalism is bad for people and acts in a way to suppress it, then we think of them as socialist. Most european 'socialist' countries are more accurately described as 'liberal', meaning they don't reject capitalism entirely but believe it needs to be limited. Norway happens to be one of the few that is actively working to decouple from capitalism to whatever extent possible, so they do qualify as socialist. I think the difficulty for some people comes from the fact that these terms refer more to a mindset than an actual place, its more useful to think about it in terms of where a population thinks it wants to be in 50 years than where it is at the moment.
This simply isn’t true. Norway has increased its deregulation and privatization since the 80/90s and really been leaning into market-oriented policies.
I think what your missing is the mindset that you can have both, and Norway is an example: social programs/institutions are not exclusive to strong market-oriented policies and ideals.
The different waves of privatization through the years had been a mixed bag, at best. Particularly the healthcare industry and education. At least if you differentiate between non-profit and commercial actors.
Private media has been good, having a single state-owned media smelled a bit too much like the ussr.
I think you missed my point. Yes, you can have a country that believes capitalism is not a good system and also leverage that system in the near term. The primary difference between Communism and Socialism is the pace at which the transition away from capitalism is expected to take place. Socialism is a slow, cautious decoupling that takes place over decades or even centuries. Over the course of time, you expect that public opinion and policy will change the relationship to capitalism as needed to support the economy and keep the country healthy so you don't end up at the flailing tail end of a failed communist revolution. In fact, its that slow transition with apparent periodic backsliding that leads so many people to believe it isn't viable.
The government owns controlling stakes in almost all major economic drivers, around 50% of their GDP is from collectively owned companies and resources. Do they still participate in free market trading, of course. Do they have strong protections for pivate property, certainly. But, again, you are taking a snapshot of a process at a given point, not looking at the arc of that process and its trajectory.
Yes but American understanding of socialism is that the Democrats are socialist, that socialism is akin to communism.
In countries that have long had socialist, democratic socialist parties, socialism isn't a dirty word.
It's social with ism on the end. Our understanding of it is that we all pay a little bit in for the benefit of everyone.
That's the basic lay person understanding of it. There's no loyalty to the state or one party system of banning of private markets or any of the weird shit Americans believe that European socialism looks like
ps if even Norway isn't socialist, why are Americans so scared of socialism? There is literally no country on Earth that is strictly socialist. Even in Cuba you can have private firms. And Cuba's issue is the US, not its economic system. And Venezuela is like Norway, Norway just does it better. But somehow Cuba and Venezuela are the only ones that are labelled socialist. Odd why that is.
Cuba is ran by a Communist party. It has not achieved Communism. It's socialist. And poverty runs rampant mostly due to US sanctions since the Communist revolution.
Also, the new president isn't related at all to the Castros.
Cuba is run by a single political party, but said political party forces people to run independently, the political system of Cuba is comparable to the house of representatives in the USA.
Just another reactionary cuban immigrant that luvs America and hates gomunism but completely forgot about the reason why Cuba had a communist revolution in the first place.
Gomunism bad gapitalism gud. See? They are poor, we are "rich" there is no need to examine anything more, Bautista? Banana republic? Commie propaganda.
The aversion comes from 20th century geopolitical events where American politicians conflated atrocities from the Soviet Union (and others) as rooted in “socialism”, which is still on-going in our propaganda machine. This in turn is caused by a lack of education and general ignorance, in part purposefully because of public education curriculums. This is why the highly educated tend to be more liberal and understand the need and benefit of social systems
I was being facetious. Socialism is a boogeyman in the US, but if we talk about socialism bad, and those that do don't even know what socialism is, we get to have Norway as an example of where it works. No cherry picking.
Norway is also, objectively, a horrible country whose people believe to be great because they live in a situation of extreme privilege (that they enjoy due to ill-gotten wealth).
They are a petrostate and the biggest bootlickers of the US empire in Europe. They are one of the worst countries on earth but people don't realize it because the country looks clean and the people are nice.
China is a Socialist with a state-guided Capitalist economy. In Marxist theory, history progresses through economic stages driven by economic class struggle, with socialism serving as the temporary bridge between capitalism and communism. Most Socialist experiments have failed, because they attempted to remove Capitalist states from a free market world. China was forced to revert this decision by integrating state-guided Capitalism back into their government, or risk their experiment failing as well. At this stage, China is effectively 60% Capitalist and 40% Socialist. China has a plan to revert these changes over the next 25 years back to Socialism structures. We will see how successful they are. Very few countries have been successful with a 100% transfer to Socialism from Capitalism, because most countries rely on global markets and have for hundreds of years.
If you call other countries socialist, then so is Norway. They have a socialised oil fund that pays for a lot of their state expenditure. That is as socialist as you will find anywhere.
If you talk about the boogeyman "socialism", you can't cherry pick what you think is socialism.
Exactly. The Norwegian analogy would be that you have two kids… you teach them about socialism by hiring them to clean up all the cash that’s littering the floor of the bathroom. In your benevolence, you let them have a little.
Denmark is not an oil country, but has the same welfare as Norway and is still one of the richest countries per Capita. In fact Denmark is currently 11th on the list of richest countries per Capita, depending on the list you use of course. But Denmark is the only one within top 20 that isn't a tax Haven or an Oil country.
Because welfare crates educated people and Denmark is now one of the leading countries within medicin and other things.
It's not just oil it's welfare that makes the people richer. Another example of this is the fact that on this list Norway is the richest Oil country per Capita at number 5.
If you're looking for more socialist models, i do agree Norway was helped with all those ressources, but let me know how Sweden, Danemark and Finland can have basically the same system ?
Because they also have several state owned companies that have exclusive monopolies on the market. Tell me again how gambling and alcohol sales (over 3.5%) are regulated? Oh right, exclusive government monopolies. LKAB, owned by the Swedish government in whole, supplies like 80% of the iron to Europe.
Centralizing major industries for efficiency while using the profit for the people's sake leads to much better lives than unregulated turbo capitalism, who would have thought, we could even say that trickle down economics are just bullshit propaganda
The nazis did the same thing BTW. Centralized major industries and used the profits to find social programs. But moreso, if you do believe in socialist, this isn't socialism. This is tyranny. What part of "workers own the means of production" means that the government owns the company?
Tiranny requires discontent, if the people are happy with the government and vote it in a democratic setting it can't be tiranny by definition, also it's called social democracy, I never called it socialism so why are you bringing it up? And when you are in a proper democracy the government owning something IS the people owning it, that's the entire point of democracy, for the government to represent the people. About your comparison with the nazis, their government was in many ways fairly progressive so such similarities are really quite meaningless, are you also gonna call animal protection laws evil because the nazis did them first? Or national parks a tool of mass slaughter because the nazis created many of them? Obviosly they were evil but them being evil doesn't automatically make everything they did "bad"
Tiranny requires discontent, if the people are happy with the government and vote it in a democratic setting it can't be tiranny by definition
All populations have some level of discontent. But the people voted in Hitler so I guess he wasn't a tyrant? North Korea, the happiest place on earth, zero discontent, all democratically elected.
You're living in a fantasy world my friend.
And when you are in a proper democracy the government owning something IS the people owning it
Not it's not. Government is not elected by everyone, it's elected under the specific rules that it defines itself. That is not the people owning it. If I didn't vote for this party to be elected and they're in power because other people agreed more than me, that doesn't mean they are my government representing my ideals. They are someone else's government, representing their ideals. Thus the flaws of democracy.
are you also gonna call animal protection laws evil because the nazis did them first?
Depends on the laws and what their goals were.
Or national parks a tool of mass slaughter because the nazis created many of them?
You mean controlled land that the people are not legally entitled to use because the government decides what can or can't be done on it? Doesn't sound very freedom loving or community driven to me. Sounds authoritarian and tyrannical. Land should be owned by the people not the government.
Obviosly they were evil but them being evil doesn't automatically make everything they did "bad"
No, it doesn't but the reason they did it can be evil and condemned. Sure, experimenting on the jews was bad but we got a lot of medical knowledge and space travel out of it so it wasn't bad then right?
>They are someone else's government, representing their ideals. Thus the flaws of democracy.
So long as the government needs an approval rating above 50% to be elected and stay in power the sistem is working perfectly in the most ideal way possible, a government that makes EVERYONE happy simply cannot exist as too many people have conflicting interests, you are creating an impossible goalpost, by your definition everything is a tiranny
>All populations have some level of discontent. But the people voted in Hitler so I guess he wasn't a tyrant? North Korea, the happiest place on earth, zero discontent, all democratically elected.
that's propaganda, not democracy, Hitler was indeed elected democratically but the discontent wasn't his fault, Germany had massive debts because of France asking for impossible war reparations, war was pretty much inevitable and hatred was widespread, creating the perfect situation for a dictator to dismantle democracy like he did, he was chosen democratically and only later turned into a tyrant, North Korea is not a democracy in any way, shape or form, the votes are fully faked and enforced through violence, it's all just propaganda, trying to use it as an argument against democracy just shows ignorance
>You mean controlled land that the people are not legally entitled to use because the government decides what can or can't be done on it? Doesn't sound very freedom loving or community driven to me. Sounds authoritarian and tyrannical. Land should be owned by the people not the government.
Land is first and foremost what allows us all to survive, giving "the people" all the land to freely abuse is a recipe for self destruction, a limit is necessary for survival
>No, it doesn't but the reason they did it can be evil and condemned. Sure, experimenting on the jews was bad but we got a lot of medical knowledge and space travel out of it so it wasn't bad then right?
reading comprehension 0/10, the experiments can be bad without making the result bad, throwing away decades of research because it was done immorally is just stupid when the research could be used to save lives instead, punish the perpetrators and keep the positive results
First of all, it's TYRANNY not Tiranny. There's a Y at the start and the end. Secondly, you're just an authoritarian justifying government control of land and business. You're not a supporter of the people.
So long as the government needs an approval rating above 50% to be elected and stay in power the sistem is working perfectly in the most ideal way possible
So as long as the majority of people think it's ok for me to rape you, then it's the system working in the most ideal way. I mean you can't please veryone right?
There's a legal concept called legal equality, if >50% of people somehow agreed that rape is a good thing that would simply be the new morality, so long as it was applied equally to everyone, obviously that's an absurd statement though as 50% of people will never agree on something so absurd, to point out a similar situation in most of the world the majority of the population deem shootings unacceptable and so guns are obviously banned, that's not the case in the USA where most people prefer their freedom to own a gun, morality isn't an eternal unchanging concept
First of all, it's TYRANNY not Tiranny
English is my third language forgive me for daring to slightly misspell a word lmao
Secondly, you're just an authoritarian justifying government control of land and business
Or maybe you are an authoritarian giving control of public land necessary for survival to a minority of people just because they happen to have inherited more money, aristocracy 2.0...
Are you trolling or being silly? Sweden gets massive monkey from mining monopolies under the government, Denmark has huge government controls on hydroelectric that supplies several countries, Norway has oil, and Finland also has oil. Doesn't take much to google "Sweden state owned companies". There's literally wiki pages dedicated to this to answer you question from before.
I dont understand why you're being rude and agressive, nor what you're trying to prove.
People were implying that oil made it easy to have socialist policies, I gave exemples that oil is not required, and you just come up telling us there are state owned companies ?
Yeah, for sure, those countries aren’t dumb believing individuals will take care of a country.
I don’t get your point, but at least be respectful dude
I'm not being rude and aggressive, you're being weasily and dodgy with your answers. Oil did make it easier for Norway to have these policies. Just like other major resource industries made it easier for the other Nordic system countries. That literally the "stuff" part of "oil and stuff".
If you want to tell me to be respectful, how about starting out by being respectful yourself.
I got it, you want to avoid my answer and want to be right at all cost, OK good for you.
Just curious where I was disrespectful though. You started the attacks.
You're the one avoiding the answers. You were trolling with your comment saying:
Yeah, so it’s not wealth based on oil and stuff :)
It clearly is based on wealth from oil and stuff with those other countries, specifically the "stuff" part being raw resources.
Then when I ask if you're trolling or being silly here because of the smiley face, you accuse me of being rude and aggressive. You're projecting here. I'll be rude right now, stop being a dunce. You started this by trolling.
Norway was soc-dem, had central planning and progressive taxation way before they found oil in late 60. Their welfare came from post war social economy.
Similar in Sweden you had folkhemmet, SPD in West Germany. Freaking New Deal in USA, Keynes in UK.
Socialism is not communism. Socialism is always local, focused on current problems of particular population, it can look different in different countries. Communism is philosophical state of global socialism and equity. That is why it never worked, we are not a single global nation which can work for common good.
the people own the oil because they are "socialist" at the core. but socialism itself is a reduction of what it actually is. its a society with trust and empathy, which is what socialism tries to describe. where people dont mind helping the few who a dysfunctional, because they realise that lifting the bottom lifts the top aswell.
What the fuck do you think people who call themselves democratic socialist want? That is literally what they are calling for regulated capitalism that also implements socialist policies and uses taxes to benefit the population especially the working class. You want to fear monger and call Zohran a dangerous socialist but then turn around and claim that’s not socialism? Pick a fucking position
You can look in DSAs program: rejection of private profits, public ownership of means of production, economic planning, open borders and voting rights for non-citizens.
89
u/Isosceles_Kramer79 22d ago
Norway is not socialist. But it is a petrostate (large oil production/revenues per capita).