[moki]

I found this to be an interesting topic to discuss. It is quite true that the only countries with successful socialistic systems (Norway and Sweden being the pinnacle examples) are very homogenous cultures.

As most of Europe faces near mandatory immigration (declining birthrates and an otherwise unsupportable health/pension system being the mandate), and tensions between ethnic groups of extremely different backgrounds mount, how will it all pan out?

Germany, for instance, needs to immigrate 500,000 people per year to have zero population growth over the next 10 years.

from: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?...mp;cid=7110559

.....

Why do americans *seem* to fear a socialist government?

My feeling is that it's largely because the US is such a large country with many diverse ethnic groups and geographic areas. With this situation, you almost guarantee that some people are going to feel shafted if they see their tax money being spent on some other group that they don't relate to. They start complaining very loudly about freeloaders grabbing their cash. In this kind of environment where most people aren't bought in, socialism doesn't really work.

In contrast, many European countries have historically had a smaller, more homogenous culture. In that situation, the majority of people can feel that they are benefiting equally from various socialist government programs, becuase they're all in the same boat. In many cases, this system can work just fine.

The US does have many strongly socialist programs, but mostly to benefit groups that most people get all teary-eyed and sentimental over, like old folks and farmers.

My expectation is that if the EU continues to add more countries and centralize its federal power, then people may start to see tax funds transferred across cultural boundaries. This would likely cause a backlash against socialism in Europe as well

[Spliffdaddy]

I think it comes down to stubborn pride moreso than fear that tax money might unduly benefit certain groups of people.

There is no motivation to look out for one's best interest if the government is already doing it for you. No incentive to struggle with and overcome obstacles. No desire to achieve and thus no possibility of being better than average.

Overcoming hardship helps to build character, pride, and integrity - something missing in a Socialist environment.

I'd rather be dead than average.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
There is no motivation to look out for one's best interest if the government is already doing it for you. No incentive to struggle with and overcome obstacles. No desire to achieve and thus no possibility of being better than average.

Overcoming hardship helps to build character, pride, and integrity - something missing in a Socialist environment.

What was it that George Bush is alleged to have said to Tony Blair:

"The trouble with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."

[Logic]

Originally posted by Troll:
What was it that George Bush is alleged to have said to Tony Blair:

"The trouble with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."

[Logic]

Originally posted by moki:
I found this to be an interesting topic to discuss. It is quite true that the only countries with successful socialistic systems (Norway and Sweden being the pinnacle examples) are very homogenous cultures.

Could you explain how Sweden is a pinnacle example of socialistic systems?

[Millennium]

I think it's mostly because of the dystopian novels everyone here has at least heard of, if not read. Most modern dystopian fiction has governments which started out claiming to be socialist.

In the US, people tend to place paramount importance on the individual, individual rights, and independence. Socialism is seen as incompatible with these things, since the focus is on the people rather than on the person. If individuals were to have all the same freedoms they enjoy now, most would not act in ways which are conducive to society as a whole.

Also, if there's one thing Americans tend to value above all else, it is independence. The entire point of socialism is for everyone to depend on society, which socialism closely ties with the state. This grates on the sensibilities of most Americans, because being dependent on something is seen as giving them power over you.

The biggest reason, I think, is this. Socialism can only work when everyone is a socialist; dissent breaks the system. This means that eventually, beliefs counter to socialism are going to have to be eradicated, meaning restrictions on speech or even a thought police, because if this does not occur, "oldthinkers" will eventually reach a critical mass and revolt. This can be delayed, for example by placing restrictions on weapons, but it's not going to be stoppable.

In short, most Americans equate socialism with totalitarianism, seeing the latter as a logistical necessity for the former.

[chris v]

Socialism as an economic principal has long been confused with Totalitarianism as a political system, due to the cold war, and the Soviet regime's euphamistic mis-labaelling of their tyranny as "socialistic" when in fact it was just a barbarous military state. The notion of socialistic ideals, mixed with open democracy, civil rights, and protection from majority tyranny in a free society doesn't bother me too much.

I mean, why do we band together AS a society, if not for the common good?

EDIT: I don't support the idea of totally removing the profit motive and personal incentive entirely. Socialism and Capitalism can be mixed, as proved by the progressive European model.

CV

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by chris v:
[BSocialism and Capitalism can be mixed, as proved by the progressive European model.[/B]

Yet Germany, the largest European nation, is increasing what patients must pay for and cutting taxes because the huge socialist system is unsustainable in Germany. France should follow that route shortly.

Huge welfare and cradle-to-grave entitlements might work well in tiny European fiefdoms, but the Great Satan is far too populous and large for such an undertaking. Besides, if it means higher taxes, most Americans would object. The total tax burdern--federal income, state income, sales, gasoline, city surcharges and taxes, social security and medicare--is crushing the American middle class.

[The Mick]

I think it is due to the huge size of the country geographically, and the huge population. Demographics play a role as well. I would not like a socialist system because frankly I don't give a damn about helping the poor or downtrodden thousands of miles away. I'd rather help those who need it in my local community. People feel better about their tax expeditures when they see a direct impact to their neighborhood. That's why I want a streamlined federal government, and advocate funding social programs locally.

There shoud be more political power held at your state, county or city level instead of the feds IMO. The only national social program I'd like to see is some type of universal health care system, either a national care system or a national insurance plan. Some branches of the federal govenment would have to stay, such at the FCC or the FAA, just to prevent chaos (though even those could be streamlined), but there is so much that could be dumped.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<snip>Most modern dystopian fiction has governments which started out claiming to be socialist.<snip>

Have you read Brave New World? That is hardly a socialist system. Work - make stuff: buy stuff: work - take soma, make more stuff. Sounds pretty capitalist to me. Besides that and 1984 (and Lord of the Flies) what other important dystopian novels are there? Animal Farm?

OK that's 3 out of 4, which is, I guess, most. I would argue the toss with 1984, because my English master told us that Orwell was actually describing the realpolitik of 1948, and I believed him. Orwell was working in British intelligence at the time, and he also wrote Animal Farm, which is more a critique of communism than socialism.

Lord of the Flies could go either way. That is, it's more an exploration of base human urges, nothing to do with socialism or communism, in fact more a case study of brute competition.

[christ]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
...Huge welfare and cradle-to-grave entitlements might work well in tiny European fiefdoms, but the Great Satan is far too populous and large for such an undertaking....

Which 'tiny European fiefdoms ' were you thinking of?

The US has only 5 times the population of the UK, and, what?, 100 times the land/ resources - a simple calculation implies that the US should have plenty of resources to 'socialise' the paltry population.

The main reason for the failure of 'huge welfare and cradle-to-grave entitlements' in a 'tiny European fiefdom' like the UK is lack of courage/belief from the leadership. The government, 60 years ago or thereabouts, set out on an ideological journey to provide a socialised safety net to an otherwise capitalist society, and it appeared to be working. But the governing class (who by their nature were more likely to be disadvantaged by a heavy tax burden and not benefitted by a social safety net) reverted from ideology to self-interest, and the result is an underfunded half-hearted attempt, which is now doomed to failure. That doesn't mean that the underlying principles were wrong,

[registered_user]

Originally posted by Millennium:
In the US, people tend to place paramount importance on the individual, individual rights, and independence.

I agree with this sentiment 100%. Socialism must restrict freedom in order to exist. It removes my freedom to live in the house that I want to and to work where I want to. It forces me to make concessions that I might otherwise choose not to make.

[gadster]

Originally posted by registered_user:
I agree with this sentiment 100%. Socialism must restrict freedom in order to exist. It removes my freedom to live in the house that I want to and to work where I want to. It forces me to make concessions that I might otherwise choose not to make.

That is crap. Unfettered capitalism is more likely to do that. Fancy moving to India to keep your job? In the call center?

[moki]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Yet Germany, the largest European nation, is increasing what patients must pay for and cutting taxes because the huge socialist system is unsustainable in Germany. France should follow that route shortly.

Right, both Germany and France are face rather large problems with their healthcare/pension systems, and reforms are coming, whether the labor unions like it or not, because the current systems are not sustainable.

Again, I think the original article had it nailed with regards to where socialism works (more or less) and where it doesn't:

In contrast, many European countries have historically had a smaller, more homogenous culture. In that situation, the majority of people can feel that they are benefiting equally from various socialist government programs, becuase they're all in the same boat. In many cases, this system can work just fine.

Granted, most of Europe is not exactly a poster child for "great socialistic states" (the unemployment, pension issues, etc. in Germany, France, Italy, etc. make that fairly clear), but it is working quite well in Sweden and Norway (though given how well off Norway is, perhaps this isn't much of a surprise).

[alien]

Moki,

Saying Norway has a successful socialistic system is way off. Do you mean we have a socialistic political model, or a socialistic economy, or both?

Norway is a successful democratic country with a market economy model.

Having a (up until now at least) working social program does not make a country socialistic.

After gaining our political and parliamentary freedom in 1814 we've were mainly influenced by early conservatism, until ca 1870, when classic liberalism became the main political force in many Western countries. This lasted until the 30s and the economic crisis. After that, a long period with social democratic governments, mixed in with some centre-right governments. But the last 22 years, there has been only one major political direction, no matter what parties have been in government: liberalizing the economy and giving more power to the individual. From all these periods, we've tried to keep the best, and reform whatever didn't work.

It's true that the Labour governments after WW2 changed the society a lot after socialistic ideas, like giving more power to the unions, establishing better job protection, more economic support for the unemployed etc.

But at the same time, capitalistic ideas also made their way more than ever, with more foreign trade with the world in general through GATT, and with free-market agreements with Western Europe.

There were a period in the 70s when after the oil revenues came, that Labour governments began using a lot of money in the public sector. Since they were reluctant to liberalize the economy and central bank policies at the same time, they nearly killed our industry's competitiveness.

But that ended in 1981, when (my all-time favorite) prime minister Willoch and his government came to power. Willoch (who in fact celebrates his 75th anniversary today) rapidly liberalized the stock exchange, eased banking regulations and began removing restrictions in several public and private areas. Pretty much like in other countries that had conservative governments at that time.

Like I said, after that, the government polices have been more privatization and break-ups of former public monopolies, in accordance with economic liberalism. This is what many of us considers to be the main driving force of our strong economy today.

So saying Norway is socialistic is nonsensical, really. I have friends that are deeply anti-capitalistic, but I've never heard they say we have a socialistic system. This is also obvious when you take into account that a large group of Labour voters have become dissatisfied with their own governments, and started voting for the the Socialistic Left Party.

[spacefreak]

I like to make my own decisions about how to spend the money I earn. I also like the inherent initiative created by a capalist system.

If I had known since birth that I'd be living a lifestyle dictated by my government, I'd likely have never gone to school, or worked hard, since any extra effort invested by myself would yield no improvement in my lifestyle.

[AutoJC]

Why do americans *seem* to fear a socialist government?

Because we value our lives, our liberties, and our prosperity, and our individual rights.

Socialism would have us all be slaves- except, of course, for those in power.

[alien]

Originally posted by moki:
</snap>
Granted, most of Europe is not exactly a poster child for "great socialistic states" (the unemployment, pension issues, etc. in Germany, France, Italy, etc. make that fairly clear), but it is working quite well in Sweden and Norway (though given how well off Norway is, perhaps this isn't much of a surprise).

What do you mean with "given how well Norway is..." The oil?

While oil revenues can be a great benefit to the state finances, they can at the same time be Real Bad for the economy itself. If the state spends too much, increased public consumption can easily "overheat" the economy, drive up wages and inflation, and so decrease competiveness. At the same time, the central bank has to increase the interest rates, which can drive up the currency. Again: bad for business.

Whenever we've been too eager with the spending, this has worsened the situation for the old-style industry. Even though the GDP over time is depending more and more on services (which don't rely on competiveness as much), not industry, there is no way we could offset a poor mainland economy with oil revenues. Oil revenues just aren't big enough in comparison with the mainland economy. (Just big enough to kill it if we have bad policies.)

What we have come up with is to shield the oil revenues as much as possible from the rest of the economy. Oil revenues are turned into holdings of stock and bonds all over the world. Then we each year bring home a small percentage (4%) of the current value, or more if that's necessary to stimulate the economy, since we want to strive for a smooth growth in the state's expenses and in the GDP, without taking unnecessary plunges.

If this isn't clear by now, we do not pay for our welfare system (health care, pensions, sick leave compensation etc) with oil money directly. The "People's Care" has always been a pay–as–you–go system, financed by the current employees. So the mainland economy has to sustain it, we're not getting it for free.

It's true that we need to reform this system. The original planners had no idea people would spend more time at universities before starting to work, or live as long beyond retirement age as they do today, or that technology and medicine together allows for much more resources to be spent at hospitals.

But reforms are underway...

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Socialism would have us all be slaves- except, of course, for those in power.

yes. unfortunately, in today's world money is freedom, and freedom is guaranteed by one's ability to provide for himself without burdensome loans or financial obligations (outside the family). You can't be free if you pocket only half your income and depend on the government for retirement, healthcare, and subsidised housing. You become slaves to the system, an eternal Bootlicker of the Man.

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
I found this to be an interesting topic to discuss. It is quite true that the only countries with successful socialistic systems (Norway and Sweden being the pinnacle examples) are very homogenous cultures.

As most of Europe faces near mandatory immigration (declining birthrates and an otherwise unsupportable health/pension system being the mandate), and tensions between ethnic groups of extremely different backgrounds mount, how will it all pan out?

Germany, for instance, needs to immigrate 500,000 people per year to have zero population growth over the next 10 years.

from: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?...mp;cid=7110559

.....

Why do americans *seem* to fear a socialist government?

My feeling is that it's largely because the US is such a large country with many diverse ethnic groups and geographic areas. With this situation, you almost guarantee that some people are going to feel shafted if they see their tax money being spent on some other group that they don't relate to. They start complaining very loudly about freeloaders grabbing their cash. In this kind of environment where most people aren't bought in, socialism doesn't really work.

In contrast, many European countries have historically had a smaller, more homogenous culture. In that situation, the majority of people can feel that they are benefiting equally from various socialist government programs, becuase they're all in the same boat. In many cases, this system can work just fine.

The US does have many strongly socialist programs, but mostly to benefit groups that most people get all teary-eyed and sentimental over, like old folks and farmers.

My expectation is that if the EU continues to add more countries and centralize its federal power, then people may start to see tax funds transferred across cultural boundaries. This would likely cause a backlash against socialism in Europe as well

I'm back.
From the same set of postings that Moki posted: Someone from Canada answered

Moki seems to have something against the "evil socialist" Europeans and this is the second posting along exactly the same lines that he's made in one week on exactly the same topic (but around the fourth or fifth such posting). It reminds me of an accusation that is often enough made here by Americans that the Europeans are "anti-american" and it seems Moki has made it his personal messianic mission to point out the failings and impending collapse of European countries based on vague theories that are in turn based on vague ideas of Europeans being either socialist or fascist, stories that remain as part of the cold war and WWII legacy.

Whatever. If Moki wants to believe that Europe will collapse and Europe is somehow "socialist" then he's free to do it if it makes him happy. Pointing out some economic problem in the USA, such as the fact that 40% of working adults are not medically insured, does not mean that the USA is going to collapse tomorrow one would think. I had a good laugh at another slashdot article recently, where the news that some states in the US are trying to bring in legislation to enforce sales tax on internet sales because it reminded me of another anti-European rant that Moki posted and I wonder what he's going to say now that it looks like the same thing is going in the US?

I think all this anti-European or anti-US stuff is rubbish but what the hell. Just passing by. Have fun folks.

[mr. natural]

Posted by moki:

Right, both Germany and France are face rather large problems with their healthcare/pension systems, and reforms are coming, whether the labor unions like it or not, because the current systems are not sustainable.

Gee, the same is true of the USofA. So what's the *socialism* point here?

Posted by Uday's Carcass:

The total tax burdern--federal income, state income, sales, gasoline, city surcharges and taxes, social security and medicare--is crushing the American middle class.

What is really "crushing" the middle class is that their *wages* have stagnated over the past few decades. What one wage earner used to bring home was enough to support the whole family; not so anymore.

Add to this fact that medical insurance expenses have sky-rocketed of late. (But of course we insist on letting corporate, i.e., private insurance companies, fleece our pockets with their endless maze of middle-man paperwork and well-heeled advertising expenses instead of - *gasp* - going with a *socialized* single payer plan. [We've been over this before and it would be less expensive but just as good than what we are stupidly stuck with now.] Never mind the pharmaceutical racket that plies the halls of Congress too.)

Add to these facts the facts that the tax burden has been shifted from the upper tier to the middle class, the corporate burden is so loopholed that it is the Mother of All Tax Breaks (not to mention all the *socialized* or "welfare" corporate breaks that add up so we end up paying them!), and maybe, just maybe, you'd be closer to some relevant facts of the matter.

Global (so-called) "Free" Trade has also lent itself to deflating wages here, primarily just to insure that we can buy cheap **** made elsewhere at Wal-Mart. Whoopee!

Are you feeling free and independent now? What utter and complete BS this is! Who the f*ck is truly *free and independent* in this day & age?

Who here grows their own food? Who has built their own house from wood culled off their own land? Who makes their own heat & light? Who makes their own clothes?

But don't let this reality interfere with the quaint American mythical idea that we a nation of "the land of the free and the home of the brave" *independent* people.

Far from it. As Ed Abbey said: "We are slaves in the sense that we depend for our daily survival upon an expand-or-expire agro-industrial empire - a crackpot machine - that the specialists cannot comprehend and the managers cannot manage... We are, most of us, dependent employees."

Amen.

As for The Mick's lament about wanting "a streamlined federal government" with "more political power held at [the] state, county or city level instead of the feds," I would suggest to not ever expect to see such a dream come true under our presently rigged Constitution. It is a Rube Goldberg contraption which ensures an infinitely splintered line of accountability toward practically everything under the hallowed guise of "checks & balances." In reality it is a mess of gridlock and redundant waste which best serves the dominant economic interests of capitalism and those at the top of the power paradigm pyramid.

No matter how you slice it, with or without *money,* we are all "Bootlickers" to the system as it is.

This silly and overwrought concern about "socialism" is just another bit of propaganda to keep us in our place without really having to think about the reality of our situation and how our public and private lives actually intersect.

No sirree. I'm a free American and I'll be damned if I let that socialist boogie man anywhere near my door.

[clarkgoble]

America, while having many communial experiments in its history, also has a very strong libertarian tradition. In Europe and Canada there isn't really that tradition. (Well there are of course intellection forms of it - it is classic liberalism - but in practice libertarianism never caught on in Europe)

While there are actually libertarian forms of socialism, in general libertarianism and socialism are deeply antagonistic to each other.

I believe that the fear of socialism in America ultimately is due to this tradition. Of course in practice America has lots of socialist programs. And not all arise from Democrats! It all depends upon how you name them I suppose. It is an odd hypocrisy that arises here from time to time.

[gadster]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Gee, the same is true of the USofA. So what's the *socialism* point here? <snip>

I am so glad there are people like you, over there.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by a Socialist Slave to Ideology:
Gee, the same is true of the USofA. So what's the *socialism* point here?

I'll make it clear for you, infidel. Germany and France have state-supported and subsidised programs, whereas the Great Satan relies primarily on the private sector. The point is that the health care programs (funded by the government through heavy taxation) are proving fiscally unsustainable, hence the reforms ongoing. That level of socialism is a failure.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
I'll make it clear for you, infidel. Germany and France have state-supported and subsidised programs, whereas the Great Satan relies primarily on the private sector. The point is that the health care programs (funded by the government through heavy taxation) are proving fiscally unsustainable, hence the reforms ongoing. That level of socialism is a failure.

Could you prove that it is unsustainable, please? Why should it be unsustainable when the government(that is the citizens) funds it but work well when the citizens pay for it?

There are always something you can change in a system to try to make it more efficient and fair but that does not mean that the system is a failure.

One example:

The Icelandic government has increased for several years the funds it puts in our health care programs but have been cutting back in certain areas since they are "not necessary". At the same time we have had a budget surplus. Oh, and they are at the same time also reducing taxation.

So, how is it in America? Shall we call the american system a failure?

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Logic:
Could you prove that it is unsustainable, please? Why should it be unsustainable when the government(that is the citizens) funds it but work well when the citizens pay for it?

A system of nearly-free, quality healthcare paid for by the government is unsustainable for larger nations--Germany and France being the argument here. Little fiefdoms like Iceland, the Netherlands, et al don't do so bad at it. But they're small, and smaller systems with tiny populations lend themselves to greater efficiency, price controls, quality consistency, and government oversight. Large (by european standards), populous nations like France and Germany are coming to grips with reality--their socialist healthcare systems are breaking their budget and the high taxes are stagnating their economies and crushing their citizenry. Even that doofus Schröder is facing reality.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Logic:
So, how is it in America? Shall we call the american system a failure?

millions of Americans don't have health insurance. Part of that is the fault of governments at all levels by harsh taxation on the working class, thereby undermining a family's ability to afford healthcare, and partly the fault of the individual for not managing their finances to afford it.

there are many different 'systems' in America, and some are failures, some are not. The issue of this thread (not originally, but what it has become) is the failure of socialism in France and Germany.

more on topic, infidels: Americans don't want socialism because they don't want higher taxes and bigger government. If they wanted this, then the liberal democrats would have accomplished this long ago, modeling the US on some socialist European rathole. Praise Allah in Paradise that pukes like Ted Kennedy are contained to the foolhearty voters of his electorate.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
A system of nearly-free, quality healthcare paid for by the government is unsustainable for larger nations-

Why? You continue to say this but you don't show any facts to back up your arguments.

-Germany and France being the argument here. Little fiefdoms like Iceland, the Netherlands, et al don't do so bad at it.

So you think that smaller nations pay less per capita for their health care systems than bigger nations? Or what are you trying to say?

But they're small, and smaller systems with tiny populations lend themselves to greater efficiency, price controls, quality consistency, and government oversight.

Care to back that up? Perhaps give me a comparison of how the Icelandic system is more efficient, have better price controls, better quality, and better government oversight than for example Germany?

Large (by european standards), populous nations like France and Germany are coming to grips with reality--their socialist healthcare systems are breaking their budget and the high taxes are stagnating their economies and crushing their citizenry. Even that doofus Schröder is facing reality.

Some proof that it is the socialist healthcare systems that are doing this and not something else? It would also be great if you could show me how the German and French economy is falling apart. Perhaps compare the two with the US economy? In growth, stability, unemployment rates, people below poverty line etc. Literacy perhaps as well. And throw in life expectancy while you're at it.

Lets start with this, OK?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
millions of Americans don't have health insurance. Part of that is the fault of governments at all levels by harsh taxation on the working class, thereby undermining a family's ability to afford healthcare, and partly the fault of the individual for not managing their finances to afford it.

So you think it is OK, that people can't afford basic healthcare? After all you say it is partly the individuals fault for not being able to manage their finances well enough. Has the average uneducated, low income, 5 member family the ability to send all their kids to school, afford the basic healthcare a family with three kids need, etc? What are the chance of moving between "classes" in America? What chance has someone in the lowerclass to move "up"? Does the average american have more chance to live the "american dream" than say Germans or Icelanders?

there are many different 'systems' in America, and some are failures, some are not. The issue of this thread (not originally, but what it has become) is the failure of socialism in France and Germany.

First of all you have to understand what socialism is, before you label France and Germany as socialist nations.

more on topic, infidels: Americans don't want socialism because they don't want higher taxes and bigger government. If they wanted this, then the liberal democrats would have accomplished this long ago, modeling the US on some socialist European rathole. Praise Allah in Paradise that pukes like Ted Kennedy are contained to the foolhearty voters of his electorate.

First stop the act. It is insulting to those who are muslims.

Second. I have no problem with that Americans don't want higher taxes and a bigger government. But I will not sit idle by while you(certain Americans) continue to claim that the European system is a failure. Both systems have their pros and cons.

So stop claiming that the European system is socialistic and about to crumble and just say the real reason for that Americans don't want socialism. The fear of higher taxes and bigger governments. It has nothing to do with how the European system is because the European system is not socialistic and not about to fail.

[NYCFarmboy]

Socialism = Shared Misery

The countries you identify as socialist utopian paradise have the highest suicide rates in the world.

[Logic]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Socialism = Shared Misery

The countries you identify as socialist utopian paradise have the highest suicide rates in the world.

Did I identify Iceland, Sweden, Norway and the rest as socialistic utopia?

Did you read any of my posts?(or was that not aimed at me?)

And then try to back up your claims with facts! When you do that I will address that point!

[NYCFarmboy]

*laughing so hard*

And I didn't mention ANY country. But it was pretty obvious that you knew the answer! It would be funny if it were not so sad.

oy vey... ok..so take another socialist utopia....about what 180 miles off the southern coast of Florida?

People despise living there in SHARED MISERY so much so that they try to swim away from it.

[Logic]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
*laughing so hard*

And I didn't mention ANY country. But it was pretty obvious that you knew the answer! It would be funny if it were not so sad.

oy vey... ok..so take another socialist utopia....about what 180 miles off the southern coast of Florida?

People despise living there in SHARED MISERY so much so that they try to swim away from it.

[Uday's Carcass]

Logic, I can't make it any clearer: Germany's socialist system is a failure by virture of them having to force higher costs and fewer free services on the population. And the high tax burder is also being lessened. This is evidence enough that their system has reached its meltdown point. The only way to fix Germany's finance problems is to reduce taxes to encourage growth (which Schroder's government has reluctantly done) and cut entitlements (making patients pay more for certain types of care). Simple enough, though your infidel, pork-eating brain will no doubt have trouble assimilating anything that counters your pinko ideology.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Logic:
But I will not sit idle by while you(certain Americans) continue to claim that the European system is a failure.

So stop claiming that the European system is socialistic and about to crumble

it's not about to crumble. In fact, it is alive and well in most of Western Europe. However, it is beginning to crumble in Germany and France.

and just say the real reason for that Americans don't want socialism. The fear of higher taxes and bigger governments.

you're right.

[registered_user]

Originally posted by gadster:
That is crap. Unfettered capitalism is more likely to do that. Fancy moving to India to keep your job? In the call center?

This does absolutely nothing to explain how socialism does not limit personal liberty.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Socialism = Shared Misery

Authoritarian socialism = shared misery (to some extent).

Libertarian socialism = shared self-activity (or vitality, or spontaneous order, or whatever you want to call it).

This whole thread is, yet another time, based on the classic misconception that socialism should be something imposed from a centralised state and obeyed upon (willing or not) by all its citizens - which is, at its best, a complete caricature of "socialism"!

When the significance of a word becomes corrupted, then anything can happen...

[theolein]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
*laughing so hard*

And I didn't mention ANY country. But it was pretty obvious that you knew the answer! It would be funny if it were not so sad.

oy vey... ok..so take another socialist utopia....about what 180 miles off the southern coast of Florida?

People despise living there in SHARED MISERY so much so that they try to swim away from it.

Your claim in inaccurate. Here is a WHO global suicide statistics table that gives known, as opposed to claimed values. Northern Europe does have an above average suicide rate, but I would wager that it has more to do with long, dark, cold winters than with standards of living or political systems. For example, Sweden (shock! One of your feared and hated Socialist utopias) has a rate of 20 per 100'000 people, as opposed to the US average of 18 per 100'000 people.

If you look closely at the chart you'll see that the highest rates, in general, are in countries that were once part of the warsaw pact i.e. ex-communist countries, which have converted to market economies. Exceptions are countries with long running civil wars, such as Sri Lanka, and countries living under Soviet style dictatorships, such as Belarus (between Poland and the US). China, despite its less than free system, has a lower suicide rate than the US.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Millennium:


In short, most Americans equate socialism with totalitarianism, seeing the latter as a logistical necessity for the former.

Well said.

I think another aspect of the suspicion involves the lie of "classlessness" in socialism.

People realize that "eat the rich" only works until the point where one looks around and discovers that they are, suddenly, the rich that is to be eaten.

Good thread.

Added:
I think a good number of people WANT to cede control of their lives to "the system", because deep down they'd rather do that than face uncertainty and hard work. They WANT someone making decisions, and natural greed and envy lead them to think that redistribution would benefit them in some way. They will continue to feel this way until they're reminded that they are "the rich."

[Spliffdaddy]

^

I concur

[theolein]

Originally posted by Millennium:
...
Also, if there's one thing Americans tend to value above all else, it is independence. ...In short, most Americans equate socialism with totalitarianism, seeing the latter as a logistical necessity for the former.

What would you call the Patriot Act and the DMCA then? Independant? Free minded? I don't think so.

I don't think that the US and Europe are that different, really. I think the prejudices in both societies do their bit to make (some) Americans lump Europe into the "Socialism" basket and equate it with the Soviet Union. I also think that a lot of Europeans lump Americans into the "Capitalistic Robber Baron" and "Imperialist" basket.

However, in the US, you have laws, such as the Sherman Act, which was made to limit the abuse of a monopoly position by a company, and which was the basis for the US DOJ's anti-trust charge against Microsoft. Such a law cvould theoretically be called "Socialist" as it restrains some of the more obvious abuses of Capitalism. Similarly, you have Social Security and Medicare (I'm not arguing about their rights or wrongs, simply that they exist) which could be, and are by some more conservative people, called Socialist.

Similarly, in Europe, there is nothing to stop you starting your own business and making a success of it. Taxes are higher than in the US, but they are lower than if you are employed somewhere. You can even, in some countries opt out of state medical insurance if you wish, and pay for a private one. All European countries (with the exception of the UK, and Belarus) have something similar to your US constitution and Bill of Rights. All of them have elected politicians, some conservative, some liberal.

Both the US and Europe have strong trade unions in some areas (AFL-CIO in the US, IGM in Germany) and none in others (IT). Both are suffering from job loss due to companies moving operations to places like India and China.

So, in short, I don't think American pereceptions of Europe as being "Socialist" are correct.

[moki]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Little fiefdoms like Iceland, the Netherlands, et al don't do so bad at it.

I'm not sure about Iceland -- others here like Logic can answer that better than I can -- but I have a number of friends from the Netherlands, as well as a doctor friend of mine who is moving there from the US (her husband is Dutch), and I can tell you that the Netherlands certainly has issues with their healthcare that concern her greatly. She plans to return to the US to give birth.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
I'm not sure about Iceland -- others here like Logic can answer that better than I can -- but I have a number of friends from the Netherlands, as well as a doctor friend of mine who is moving there from the US (her husband is Dutch), and I can tell you that the Netherlands certainly has issues with their healthcare that concern her greatly. She plans to return to the US to give birth.

Which merely proves that the US has the best healthcare money can buy. If you don't happen to have money, well....you must be incompetent or lazy and why should we provide health to those who can't hack it?

Anecdotes about persons who can afford to seek healthcare in the US is not very good argument against universal coverage. If Americans could cross the border to Canada to recieve cheaper healthcare, they would do it by the thousands. Just like they are doing for prescription drugs.

The US spends twice as much per person on healthcare as the next country on the list (which has universal coverage). And many more times per person than many nations with universal coverage.

[christ]

Originally posted by moki:
...She plans to return to the US to give birth.

People with money can do that.

Unfortunately that does not apply to everyone in the Netherlands. I'm sure that your doctor friend will greatly enhance her standing with her husband and their Dutch pals by this course of action. But of course, as she is American, that won't bother her.

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
I'm not sure about Iceland -- others here like Logic can answer that better than I can -- but I have a number of friends from the Netherlands, as well as a doctor friend of mine who is moving there from the US (her husband is Dutch), and I can tell you that the Netherlands certainly has issues with their healthcare that concern her greatly. She plans to return to the US to give birth.

??? Your post makes it sound as if babies and their mothers die in their thousands in Holland, and is either pure flamebait or very ignorant. You know, it seems far less about medical care in Holland, or Europe than you claim you do. A couple of points:

1. I've lived in Holland and been in hospital there. Medical care is excellent (and cheap compared to Switzerland where we have a nice capitalist system and no state medical care). Women I've known in Holland have had their kids without any problems, and their kids are growing up healthy and without any problems.

2. Holland, like most European countries with state medical care, also allows you to pay for your private medical insurance and go to private medical institutions if you want. It doesn't cost any more than medical care in the US.

I don't know what your point is with this continual scare mongering of some big bad (and non existant) socialist Europe. Will you finally make a point?

[Nicko]

Originally posted by theolein:


I don't know what your point is with this continual scare mongering of some big bad (and non existant) socialist Europe. Will you finally make a point?

I was wondering that too. He makes it sound like europe is a new 'red menace' or something like that.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by theolein:
What would you call the Patriot Act and the DMCA then? Independant? Free minded? I don't think so.

Frankly, I call them acts of treason. The former having been rushed through Congress using every manipulative trick in the book, at a time when the lawmakers were at their most emotional. The latter having been rushed through using almost as many tricks and deceptions.

Just because people value independence doesn't mean they cannot be manipulated under certain circumstances. Even lawmakers are not immune to that.

[thunderous_funker]

Why do Americans seem to fear a socialist government?

Because those who benefit most from an exploitative system tell them that the alternatives are bad, mmmmkay?

Oh, and they promise that everyone gets what they deserve so there is no need to resent the successful and pity and unsuccessful--their relative success is merely a function of their relative quality as persons and economic agents.

And massive wealth is avaialable all those who want it badly enough and are willing to do anything to get it (as long as it doesn't threaten those who currenlty have it).

And doing what's good for those who exploit you will ultimately be rewarded.

[clarkgoble]

Except that often those most opposed to what is deemed "socialism" are the poor and blue collar. Often those most in support of "socialist agendas" are from relatively well off backgrounds or at least solid middle class upbringing.

This is one of those odd features of American politics which leads to rather strange situations. Look at Alabama and the Republican governor there who is attempting tax reform. Yet the people who will benefit the most: the relatively poor, are those most opposed to raising taxes on the more wealthy.

While I don't think we ever ought to forget to follow the "money trail," I think that such notions forget the role ideology plays in American politics. Even amongst those ill informed about politics, worries about ideology often focus the debate. That is why both sides try to label their opponent in terms of the labels that Americans ideologically fear. (Whether the labels are appropriate or not) The ultimate political coup is to associate a groups self-label with some undesired ideology. That's what conservatives were able to do to liberals starting in the late '80's until it became a dirty word.

[moki]

Originally posted by alien:
Moki,

Saying Norway has a successful socialistic system is way off. Do you mean we have a socialistic political model, or a socialistic economy, or both?

Norway is a successful democratic country with a market economy model.

Having a (up until now at least) working social program does not make a country socialistic.

Agreed, I'm using the term in a very lazy way. I'm not referring to the Marxist-Leninist representation of socialism, but rather social welfare, such as nationalized healthcare, nationalized pensions, nationalized unemployment compensation, nationalized education, etc, etc.

So forgive the lazy terminology, and on with the debate...