U.S. Politics, Elections & Culture issues

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by George S.

Yes tom you are right about the Swedish situation I think the country is slipping into oblivion some say into a third world country.

I don't know about a third world country, but I wouldn't use it to promote a welfare state or socialism in general...actually, I wouldn't use any attempt at socialism to promote socialism. That's probably why most socialists just stick to theoretical socialism when promoting socialism, then claiming that all attempts to date weren't "real" socialism.

[Gocka]

Hold on first let me get my tinfoil hat.... Ok now I'm ready.

What does this have to do with socialist ideals?

Do you really believe Muslims around Europe have carved out little sharia enclaves that the standard rule of law doesn't apply, and even police are afraid or even bared from going?

Also a little tidbit, It also mentioned in the link below that Sweden had no gun violence at all up until recently, and up until recently the population was totally unarmed. Hmmmmm

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

The Swedish utopia:

http://swedenreport.org/2015/05/18/p...nes-in-sweden/

[DraganOfStip]

https://www.quora.com/Scandinavia/Wh...rdic-countries

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Gocka

Hold on first let me get my tinfoil hat.... Ok now I'm ready.

What does this have to do with socialist ideals?

Do you really believe Muslims around Europe have carved out little sharia enclaves that the standard rule of law doesn't apply, and even police are afraid or even bared from going?

Also a little tidbit, It also mentioned in the link below that Sweden had no gun violence at all up until recently, and up until recently the population was totally unarmed. Hmmmmm

Socialism is mean't to overcome national/religious identity and unite the working class. Its an internationalist ideology, not a nationalist one. And it definitely has no room for religion. This is part of its view of an ordered society. Obviously one of the key objectives of socialism has not been achieved in Sweden, which is held up by socialists as an example.

[DraganOfStip]

No country is perfect,but the Scandinavian system has proved to be the most efficient in Europe when it comes to citizens' well-being.
These countries have among the best living standards and lowest crime rates in the world.
That is a fact that no one can deny.And once again - Bernie Sanders is a social democrat,not a socialist (communist).
Labeling him as a communist would be the same as labeling the Scandinavian countries as communist countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Denmark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Norway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Sweden

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Finland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iceland

Also,latest polls suggest that his popularity is getting bigger and bigger and by the national convention only God knowns what will be the results:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-s...n-in-n-h-poll/

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pres...s-iowa-n422111

[Vangelovski]

What's a 'social democrat'?

[Gocka]

A Social Democrat is typically a socialist who is also for a parliamentary democracy.

You seem to blur the lines between Communism and Socialism, which is typical for someone who leans right. They are similar but in the end more different enough to requite distinction.

Your explanation above about what is the purpose of socialism, its a bit narrow and also crosses into Communism.

Also even if this while thing about Muslim enclaves is true (highly unlikely), its hardly a reflection on the success or failure of the Scandinavian semi Socialist model. Lets face it, if you put these Muslim Extremists in a Utopia, they will probably burn it to the ground.

Its hard to deny that as a whole the Scandinavian socio-economic model is quite balanced and successful. I also wouldn't quite call it socialism either. The means of production certainly are not owned and controlled by the public.

The Scandinavian model is a cross between Socialism and Capitalism, taking the better parts of both systems to benefit the majority of its society.

The public owns only the basic institutions like utilities, roads, education, and health care. Which give its society a steady baseline. They ensure people dont end up in poverty and that they have a basic existence secure. Then they incentivize working, with strong focus on workers rights. They still allow for individual growth and innovation without allowing wealth to become to centralized.

To date no one has came up with a more well balanced system.

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

What's a 'social democrat'?

[George S.]

how about the socialist criminal who supposedly takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

[DraganOfStip]

Originally Posted by Gocka

A Social Democrat is typically a socialist who is also for a parliamentary democracy.

According to Wikipedia:

Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, redistribution of income and wealth, and a commitment to representative democracy

Or,watch this video of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftungs's Academy for Social Democracy explaining what Social Democracy is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvJ8YDma7Wk

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Gocka

A Social Democrat is typically a socialist who is also for a parliamentary democracy.

So he's still a socialist?

Originally Posted by Gocka

You seem to blur the lines between Communism and Socialism, which is typical for someone who leans right. They are similar but in the end more different enough to requite distinction.

I haven't blurred anything, quite simply because I haven't even commented on communism. But yes, socialists do claim there is a distinction between the two and I agree to a degree.

Originally Posted by Gocka

Your explanation above about what is the purpose of socialism, its a bit narrow and also crosses into Communism.

I noted that it was only ONE objective of socialism. I did not intend to provide an overall explanation of socialism. It does cross into communism because its an ideal they share. You shouldn't forget the socialism is only a stage of development towards "full" communism, so they do tend to share ideals.

Originally Posted by Gocka

Also even if this while thing about Muslim enclaves is true (highly unlikely), its hardly a reflection on the success or failure of the Scandinavian semi Socialist model. Lets face it, if you put these Muslim Extremists in a Utopia, they will probably burn it to the ground.

Well, evidence that it is true was presented and I know for a fact that there are a lot of no-go zones across Europe. Given that socialism is mean't to destroy national and religious loyalties and worldviews, it has certainly failed on those counts - namely, radical islamists and the continued existence of a Swedish national identity.

Originally Posted by Gocka

Its hard to deny that as a whole the Scandinavian socio-economic model is quite balanced and successful. I also wouldn't quite call it socialism either. The means of production certainly are not owned and controlled by the public.

You'd have to define what you consider "balanced" and "successful". Not all of the 'means of production' are owned/controlled by the public, but about half (if not more) of the wealth created by those 'means of production' is certainly appropriated and redistributed (from those according to their ability to those according to their need) by the state/public. Its effectively the same thing.

Originally Posted by Gocka

The Scandinavian model is a cross between Socialism and Capitalism, taking the better parts of both systems to benefit the majority of its society.

You'd have to define what you consider as "benefit" because I'm not entirely convinced of that, nor that its benefiting a majority.

Originally Posted by Gocka

The public owns only the basic institutions like utilities, roads, education, and health care. Which give its society a steady baseline. They ensure people dont end up in poverty and that they have a basic existence secure. Then they incentivize working, with strong focus on workers rights. They still allow for individual growth and innovation without allowing wealth to become to centralized.

To date no one has came up with a more well balanced system.

From the Australian experience, privatisation of public utilities like water, electricity, phone companies etc has only resulted in better and cheaper services. Some will argue not, but the choice and lower cost now compared to before privatisation is enormous. So I'm in no way convinced that public ownership of utilities is a good thing. Nor am I convinced that only public ownership of education and health care is the best way to deliver those services. Again, my experience in the Australian system, which is mixed, shows me that while state involvement in education and heath care can be beneficial, it certainly cannot replace the private sectors in these industries without a serious decline in quality.

You've presupposed that the "centralisation of wealth" (as you refer to it) is a bad thing. What exactly is that though - the centralisation of wealth?