uh you started it
Doesn’t matter since they never reached the end goal of communism. The root of it all was Marxism. A socialist phase is required to reach communism. It endly badly.
As long as a socialist is a marxist, there is no such thing as “more socialistic” or “less socialistic” because it is all part of the main ideology.
The fact that these people are still passing the buck to “communism” should set off a lot of warning bells.
Wasn’t my intention. I really just wanted to see how he defined more government control.
Worked out well for neverTrumpers last time…
1 Like
What is the end goal of communism? I actually don’t know. I define China’s government as communist with a bit of capitalism sprinkled in (especially lately).
I think we may be looking at things a bit to black and white. China might not fit the encyclopedia’s definition of communism perfectly, and some of the Scandinavian countries might not fit the definition of socialism perfectly. Let’s get away from that, and think more on a scale of capitalism (closest to it is probably Somalia), to communism (closest is probably USSR). Socialism is somewhere between the two.
Do we agree that moving from capitalism in some degree is probably a good idea? Do we agree that moving from communism is probably a good idea? Generally the people who think the ideal spot for policy is closer to the communist side are labeled socialists, and the opposite are labeled libertarian or far right. From that stand point Scandinavians are more socialist than the USA for example. Many in the USA would label them socialist even though they do not fit the definition perfectly.
What does “socialist like” mean and how does that fit with the definition of the Nordic model as being “underpinned by a free market capitalist economic system that features high degrees of private ownership”?
Has anyone asked the Swedes, notably their ex Prime Minister Carl Bildt?
3 Likes
Do you think any of the candidates running that are being labeled as socialist, are suggesting that we can no longer own private property?
See my above post for my thoughts on how I label countries. Sweden does not fit the definition perfectly, but it would be seen as socialist by many further to the right.
Then I guess your comment about all the candidates being socialists holds no water. Seems we’re circling back to justifying an unjustifiable position.
I don’t think you have a good grasp on their positions.
1 Like
Yes, but the right uses the s-word to label everything left of them, the same way as “Nazi” is used by the left.
Again, a free market capitalist economy that is Sweden does not fit this definition in any way:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers’ self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.
2 Likes
The end goal of communism is a stateless society where everyone is equal and working for the common good. The way you achieve this is through a totalitarian government with the power to redistribute everything. This is socialism. It does not happen overnight. It takes decades.
China’s present government is simply an authoritarian, one party system with a heavily regulated, capitalist economy. It isn’t communist, nor is it really socialist. It would be closer to State Capitalism.
I’m definitely not doing that.
Correct.
Not in the least. Dishonest people are purposefully conflating them with socialism.
Wrong. This is bullshit that socialists are trying to sell you.
No. You are probably thinking about corporatism. It is a very different thing.
This is not my thought process.
No, socialism with marxist roots all form part of a common ideology. Communism.
It’s the right wing people who don’t understand what socialism is who are doing so.
2 Likes
Which is objectively wrong. Just because people on the right say this doesn’t make it right.
1 Like
Indeed it did!
I have always felt that to truly win…the candidate has to be “for” something.
It doesn’t matter how much the “other-side” may be “any-body-but” ; or how repulsed they may be by what the other side if “for”…you better be about something.
“Anti-campaigning” only goes so far…
I disagree that Sweden is a free market capitalist economy. They have business regulations, wealth redistribution, trade agreements with other countries, and the list goes on.
I think we agree about this. I was writing in the context earlier in the thread, in which the Dem. candidates were labeled as socialist. Basically I argued above that we don’t have examples of perfect socialism, so I was trying to get agreement on what is means from the general public’s point of view. I think this failed.
1 Like
It got the GOP a crippling control of the federal state and local govts for 6+ years by being strictly anti Obama.
Historically, being anti something can completely dominate the entire country
The official site of the Kingdom of Sweden disagrees with you.
https://sweden.se/business/how-sweden-created-a-model-economy/
Yes, but before AOC and the lurch towards the left coupled with identity politics, European style center right policies were considered “extreme left wing” in US political discourse.
1 Like
We are getting caught up with definitions here quite a bit.
I would wager that most Swedish politicians would be labeled as socialist here. It would be incorrect, but it would happen. Those countries lean further to the left than most others.
I agree that we should not straw man politicians by saying they are something else.
1 Like
What does that have to do with anything? What is free market capitalism. They can label themselves as whatever they want, but they do not have unfettered free capitalism.
Do you think the USA is free market capitalism? I work in the medical device industry, and I can tell you it is not free market. Competitors are not free to enter the market (government barriers exist). The FDA protects existing companies, by not allowing new competitors to enter the market. Sweden has similar policies to the USA in that regard (they require CE marking, which is a barrier to entry).
Not at all. We’ve given you the correct definitions. @loppar grew up in a socialist country. I am Chinese by ethnicity and have studied a lot of Chinese socialist literature, do business in China and have a Chinese wife. If you want to know how much bribing I need to do just to get normal everyday stuff done there because of the remnants of socialist black market culture, just ask.
I don’t care about what they are labelled as by others. I’m more concerned with what they really are. The politicians in the Nordic States are social democrats. Social democrats have long rejected socialism for a capitalist market.
1 Like
Disagree. It has been stated multiple times that Sweden is a free market capitalist country, which is not true.
There is no such thing as a completely free market anywhere in the world. This, however, does not support the argument that just because no country has been fully “socialist”, socialism can be conflated with a highly regulated market.